Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

AIR MINISTRY (CATTEWATER SEAPLANE STATION) BILL,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th day of June, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Air Ministry (Cattewater Seaplane Station) Bill.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill.

Salford Provisional Order Bill.

Leicester Fire Brigade Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],

Great Yarmouth Haven Bridge Bill [Lords],

Leek Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Oldham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],

Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords]

Surrey County Council Bill [Lords],

Uckfield Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (EXPORT TRADE).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of the export trade of France for the years 1913, 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer includes a number of figures, and, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask whether, in view of the growing prosperity of France, it is not desirable that we should press our reparation claims there?

Following is the answer:

The officially-recorded values of the merchandise (national and nationalised) exported from France in the years specified, with their approximate sterling equivalents, were as follows:

Value of Exports.


Year.
Million francs.
Million £.


1913
6,880.2
272.8


1922
21,378.9
391.8


1923
30,432.6
401.8


1924
41,454.1
486.1

For 1913 the sterling equivalent has been calculated at the par of exchange, and for other years at the average of the quoted rates.

The particulars relate to France, exclusive of Alsace-Lorraine in 1913, and inclusive of Alsace-Lorraine in the later years.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. ERMIN'S HOTEL OCCUPATION DURING WAR.)

Mr. AMMON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the sum of £15,000 per annum,  plus all outgoings, paid for the use of St. Ermin's Hotel during the War was inclusive of the £5,000 per annum due to the Ecclesiastical Commission for ground rent?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The ground rent payable was included in the "outgoings," which were paid, in addition to the compensation of £15,500 per annum.

Mr. AMMON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of compensation paid by the Government to the Manufacturers' Estates and Assets Company, Limited, in respect of dilapidations for the use of St. Ermin's Hotel during the War?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The amount paid was £8,401 10s. 11d.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CINEMA FILMS.

Viscount SANDON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposals recently made advocating licence fees for foreign films as the best measure for the assistance of the British cinema film industry; and whether, in view of this industry being so vital on social and national, apart from trading, grounds, he will grant assistance, either on the lines suggested or by some other method, in order to foster its growth?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to the suggestion to which my hon. Friend refers, but, in present circumstances, at any rate, the Government do not see their way to give effect to it.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (RUSSIA AND ARGENTINE).

Mr. TAYLOR: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value
of agricultural machinery exported from Great Britain and the United States of America to the Soviet Republics of Russia in the six months ended 31st March, 1925; and, if not, will he furnish figures for the latest date available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The trade accounts of the Soviet Republics show that during the five months ended 28th February, 1925, there were imported from the United Kingdom into the European and Caucasian territory of the Republics 82 metric tons of agricultural machinery, value at 33,000 gold roubles. Similar imports from the United States are not separately stated, nor does the official monthly summary of the commerce of the United States furnish particulars of such exports to Russia.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between March and December last year, 3,000,000 dollars worth of agricultural machinery was exported from the United States to Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I have told the hon. Gentleman what information is available from the official report.

Mr. EVERARD: Has any payment been made for any of this machinery?

Mr. TAYLOR: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether every facility is accorded manufacturers of agricultural machinery in this country to trade with the Argentine and Russia; and whether, having regard to the extensive unemployment in the engineering trades, credit facilities would be afforded to reliable firms who made application for same?

Mr. A. M SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Information regarding openings for trade in agricultural machinery is furnished by the Department of Overseas Trade in respect of any markets where such openings may occur. As regards credit facilities, the Export Credits Scheme, which is available for the Argentine and other countries, is not open, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, for transactions with Russia. It is not proposed to make any change in this respect in its administration.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that trade between this country
and Russia which would take place, were it not for political reasons arising out of the British Government's attitude, is being deliberately driven away from this country because of the inactivity of the Government?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TINPLATE MILLS.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 5.
asked, the President of the Board of Trade the number of tinplate mills in existence in France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Japan, Norway and Sweden in the year 1913 and in 1925, giving the number for each country named separately?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not in possession of the information required by the hon. Member, but am endeavouring to obtain it, and will communicate further with him in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. HAYES: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the old age and ill-health of Mrs. Catherine Sayle, of 87, Saxony Road, Kensington, Liverpool, her belated reparation claim in respect of her late son can be reconsidered, having in mind, in addition, the fact that Mrs. Sayle is rarely physically fit to leave home, and was not aware that claims could be entertained until 7th December last?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The first intimation of a desire to claim was not notified by Mrs. Sayle to the Reparation Claims Department until 8th December, 1924, long after the final date fixed for the acceptance of claims against the £300,000 fund provided for solatia to belated claimants. In these circumstances, the answer to the hon. Member's question must be in the negative.

Mr. HAYES: Cannot special consideration be given to this case owing to this old lady's infirmity, and the fact that she was not able to receive the usual notice either through the Post Office or otherwise?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it would be possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of
whether these belated claims should come in at all has been very carefully considered and a tremendous amount of advertising was done by my predecessor in order to bring the fund under the notice of everybody. We really must fix a definite date.

Mr. HAYES: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the hardships and dissatisfaction existing among many members and ex-members of the mercantile marine, their widows and dependants, on account of the meagre payments made in respect of reparation claims submitted to the Royal Commission, and the exclusion of a large number of claims on the ground that they are out of time, the Government will consider a further extension of time and a further supplementary grant?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions by the hon. Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and Cardiff East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) on the 12th February, to which I cannot add anything.

Mr. HAYES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the balance of the original amount of £5,000,000 still unspent, and the balance of the £300,000 still unspent, will be utilised for the purpose of extending benefit to those who have already submitted their claims?

Mr. GUINNESS: These figures were maximum figures, and where they have to be spread pro rata over a large number of cases it is obviously impossible to arrange for spending right up to the limit.

Mr. HAYES: Is it proposed to utilise the unexpended balance for the purpose of reparation claims?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, no. This money was all advanced out of the taxpayers' pockets as a maximum, and the Sumner Commission did their best to spread it over a large number of claims in proportion to their merits. If you have a small margin it would be a matter of great complication to re-open the whole question and make that insignificant fresh payment to all claimants.

Mr. HAYES: Is not the unexpended balance approximately £500,000, which is not a small thing?

Oral Answers to Questions — BARROW-IN-FURNESS HARBOUR (LIGHT DUES).

Mr. BROMLEY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the amounts received by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Port of Lancaster in respect of light duties levied on ships loading and unloading in Barrow-in-Furness harbour for the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924 respectively; and how was such money expended in each of these years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is rather long, and contains a number of figures. I will, therefore, with the hon. Member's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts of the light duties levied on vessels using Barrow harbour (lees the cost of collection) for the years in question, beginning with the financial year from the 1st May, 1911, to the 30th April, 1912, were as follows:—



£
s.
d.


1911–1912
1,430
17
0


1912–1913
1,531
5
11


1913–1914
1,583
13
2


1914–1915
1,212
0
2


1919–1920
2,219
10
0


1920–1921
2,080
6
8


1921–1922
1,785
2
8


1922–1923
2,343
18
11


1923–1924
2,547
10
3


1924–1925
1,982
10
1

As regards the last part of the question, these duties were applied by the Commissioners to the purposes prescribed in Section 19 of the Furness Railway Act, 1894. Any duties in excess of £975 per annum are by that Act transferred to the Furness Railway Company (now amalgamated with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company).

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. HAYES: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the next meeting of the Food Commission will be held; and
whether any action will be taken to prevent profiteering in articles of food other than meat and bread?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which the Prime Minister gave on 11th June to the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), a copy of which I am sending him.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARTILLERY OBSERVATION BALLOONS.

Viscount SANDON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the Government policy as to a nucleus being trained and retained for operating artillery observation balloons; and whether these could be put into the field immediately on the outbreak of war?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): It is not anticipated that balloon units would be required in the opening phases of a war, but they might become necessary as the war progresses. With a view to the development of the art of ballooning and in order to provide a nucleus for expansion after the outbreak of a war, a school of ballooning is being maintained by the Air Ministry.

HOSPITAL (AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT).

Mr. ROBINSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the name of the hospital referred to on page 7 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Army Accounts, 1923–24, where the staff averaged one for each patient over the year; what was the cost per day for each patient; and what was the nature of the disease or disabilities treated at the hospital?

Captain KING: As this question arises on the Army Account, 1923–24, which at present stands referred to the Committee of Public Accounts, I propose to defer the reply until the Committee have reported.

POISONING, COLOGNE.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the poisoning of 40 soldiers of the York and Lancaster Regiment at Cologne, of whom two have died; to what food the poison-
ing was traced; whether this food was supplied by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute or by a private contractor; whether any special instructions are issued to Army cooks on the handling of tinned foods, and, if not, whether he will consider the issuing of such instructions to units in future for display in prominent places in all cook houses; and whether he will lay the result of the court of inquiry at Cologne before the House?

Captain KING: I am at present awaiting a report on this matter which has been called for; I will communicate further with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible. I understand that no soldiers died as a result of the poisoning, and that they were all well again the following day, with the exception of one man, who has now recovered.

TANKS (TENDERS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office consulted Messrs. William Foster and Company, Limited, of Lincoln, who were the originators and builders of the tanks used in the War, before ordering the tanks and engines in 1919 which were, at a later date, condemned as useless for either training or war, and which involved the country in an expenditure of £267,000; whether he is aware that the works of this firm are specially laid out for the building of tanks and similar engines of war, that a large number of their skilled workmen are unemployed, and that there is a large amount of destitution in Lincoln owing to the volume of unemployment; and whether, in the circumstances, the firm of Messrs. William Foster and Company will be invited to tender for such tanks as the Army may require?

Captain KING: I think that this and other questions arising on the Army Accounts for 1923–24 should be deferred until after the Committee of Public Accounts to which it stands referred has reported. I may say, however, that only a small order for tanks is being given this year, and it is not proposed to ask Messrs. Foster and Company to tender for these. I must not be taken as subscribing to the hon. Member's description of the firm as the originators of the tanks used in the War. Messrs. Foster and Company are only one of several firms (and by no means the largest producer) who manufactured tanks during the War.

Mr. TAYLOR: Were any private firms given an opportunity of tendering to the Government specifications, or is it the fact that no firms were allowed to offer tenders? Is it not also the case that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House in 1919 that the Government type of tank would make all existing types obsolete; and has not this sum of £267,000 in fact been wasted, and have not all these tanks been scrapped?

Captain KING: I have already pointed out that this matter will come before the Public Accounts Committee and will then be reported on to the House.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Foster's firm received the largest amount of payment for the patents in tanks?

Captain KING: I should require notice of that question.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of employés, civilian and other, of the War Office who occupy labourers' cottages in country districts; and whether any provision is being made by the War Office to provide housing accommodation for those civilians employed at remount depots and ordnance depots, etc., who are at present occupying cottages needed by agricultural labourers?

Captain KING: War Department employés for whom Government accommodation is not available choose their own place of residence, and I regret that information is not available as to the number of such employés who are occupying labourers' cottages in country districts. In the case of civilian employés whose duties are of a pivotal nature necessitating residence in close proximity to their work, steps are taken as funds become available to erect Government quarters for their occupation.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is aware that War Office employés from Arborfield Remount Depot, Bramley Ordnance Depot, and other places are occupying agricultural labourers' cottages which are wanted for agriculture by their owners, and whether he will take some steps to deal with this matter by providing houses for their own employés?

Captain KING: My hon. and gallant Friend received an answer on that question a week or so ago, and I can assure him that the matter is fully realised.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. WINDSOR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the cost of transporting a soldier's wife and three children to India: whether, in the event of the woman refusing to travel to India, she forfeits the marriage allowance for herself and children; and, if so, whether, in the circumstances, the compulsory deduction of 2s. a day from the soldier's pay is still made and forwarded to the wife?

Captain KING: As regards the first part of the question, the cost would depend on the age of the children, but, assuming two of the children are between two and eight years old and the third is over eight years, the cost would be £54, approximately. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative; and, to the third, that, when the soldier's wife is not in receipt of marriage allowance, the compulsory deduction of 2s. a day from the soldier's pay is not made, but the soldier retains the right to allot voluntarily a portion of his pay for payment to his wife.

Mr. WINDSOR: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the marriage allowance payable to the wife of a private in the Army, and the allowance payable in respect of children; and whether a woman who has her home in London is compelled to break up the home and go into barracks in another part of the kingdom when ordered, under pain of forfeiting the marriage allowance?

Captain KING: The marriage allowance for the wife of a private soldier is 7s. a week; the allowance payable in respect of children is as follows:

s.
d.


6
6 for the 1st child.


4
6 for the 2nd child.


2
0 for the 3rd and 4th child.


1
6 for the 5th and 6th child.


1
0 for each child more than six.

The allowance is conditional upon the soldier and his wife residing together, unless they are separated by the exig-
encies of the service. As a general rule, therefore, marriage allowance is forfeited if the wife fails to accompany her husband to the place where he is quartered; but, if the hon. Member considers that there is any special feature in the case he has in mind, and will let me have details of it, I will have it investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

ARREST OF BRITISH SOLDIER.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a young recruit of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers stationed at their depot at Omagh, who went in uniform to Bundoran in the Irish Free State, was arrested by the civic guard because he wore the uniform of the British Army; and whether any representations have been made to the Irish Free State authorities in the matter?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the recent incident in which a soldier belonging to the Royal Inniskillings was compelled to discard his uniform by the civic guard of the Irish Free State when he crossed the border of Northern Ireland to the Irish Free State; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Captain KING: Inquiries are being made, but I have not yet obtained all the information asked for. I should be obliged if the question could be repeated in a week's time.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we know what is the reason for this delay? This incident happened some weeks ago, and surely the War Office must have been able to find out whether or not the facts are as stated in the question, and whether any representations can be made?

Captain KING: I think my hon. Friend will realise the seriousness of this matter, and I hope he will not press me for an answer until we have all the facts before us.

Mr. GREENE: Is it illegal for a British soldier to wear his uniform in any portion of the British Empire?

Captain KING: Not to my knowledge.

INCOME TAX

Mr. RADFORD: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British friendly societies and others who have lent money to Irish municipalities are suffering the deduction from their interest of Irish Free State Income Tax; that they are at present unable to secure repayment of such Income Tax; and whether His Majesty's Government will get into communication with the Irish Free State Government with a view to making reciprocal arrangements with regard thereto?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am aware of the position that has arisen between this country and the Irish Free State in relation to Income Tax in consequence of the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion with separate powers of taxation. A review of the whole position is now being conducted in conjunction with the Irish Free State authorities.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this review has now been going on for some months, and great hardship has been occasioned to individuals, and should not some conclusion now be arrived at?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will do my best to accelerate the matter. I quite recognise that there is a good deal of hardship upon individuals.

Mr. GREENE: Does this review concern the Free State alone or other Dominions as well?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; these are our relations with the Free State.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SOUTH LIBERTY COLLIERY.

Mr. W. BAKER: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the South Liberty Colliery, belonging to the Ashton Vale Iron Company, Limited, has been closed down since June, 1924, and is being, or has been dismantled; that this pit originally employed 500 men and is capable of an output to-day of nearly 2,000 tons per week; that new headgear was installed at a heavy cost in January, 1924; and whether, in order to prevent the destruction of this mineral wealth,
the Government will consider the possibility of taking over dismantled pits?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I am aware of the circumstances referred to. The colliery has been closed on the ground that it cannot be worked except at a loss. I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member that the acquisition of such mines by the Government would be in the public interest.

Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the immense importance of conserving our mineral wealth, would it not be well to institute an inquiry into the circumstances, in order to ascertain the exact reasons for closing down?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am afraid the reasons are only too well known, and I do not think an inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Minister taking any steps to encourage similar experiments to that of the Vauxhall Colliery, which has been so successful, to prevent these mines closing down?

Mr. LUNN: Would it be possible to tell the House what is the real reason for these collieries being closed down?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I believe the real reason is that they were losing very considerable sums of money, and they could not go on doing that.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not some collieries have been stopped in Durham county because of the reason he now states, and yet they showed a profit at the last ascertainment?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That is quite possible, for the conditions have become worse.

CO-OPERATIVE WORKING.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give details of the result of the experiment now being tested of the working of certain coal mines upon an agreed co-operative basis; and, if the experiments are successful, will he institute inquiries if similar principles can be recommended to some of the owners and employés of many other pits now closed?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have no information on this subject beyond that which has appeared in the Press, except of the arrangement at Vauxhall Colliery, particulars of which I gave in a reply to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on 17th March. I do not think that Government action on the lines suggested would be expedient or helpful.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman endeavour to engage in similar co-operative experiments to those that are obtaining in Germany and Austria and in other parts of Europe, and apply the lessons gained there to our own country, giving both employers and employés full opportunity?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am certainly looking out for any co-operative developments in foreign countries, and, if useful, will gladly draw the attention of our people to them.

CLOSING OF PITS.

Colonel GRETTON: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal mines were closed down during the month of May; and if any have been closed during June or if notice has been given of the closing of more coal mines?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Fifty-nine coal mines, normally employing 8,875 wage-earners, were closed during the month of May. No later information is yet available.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the reason why many of these coal mines are closing down is due to the reparations in coal demanded for France?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No, that is not the reason. I cannot go into it now, but that is not the reason.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that the only hope of improving the position is by safeguarding the steel trade, which is the greatest consumer of coal in this country?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the reason for the mines being shut down is because of Parliament interfering with the miners' hours of work?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is raising a large Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LAMBETH BRIDGE.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the fact that the new Lambeith Bridge will be visible from the Terrace of this House, and also to the public desire that any new bridge constructed over the Thames shall be worthy of the capital city, he will invite the London County Council to furnish them with copies of the plans and design of the bridge and its approaches, to be placed in the Library of the House for the inspection of Members?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel W. Ashley): The design of this bridge and its approaches has not yet, I understand, been worked out in detail, but the London County Council have been good enough to supply me with a copy of the architect's general drawing, which is hung in this year's Royal Academy Exhibition. I am arranging for it to be hung in the Tea Room to-day.

NEW KENT ROAD, SOUTHWARK (REFUGES).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the urgent need for more street refuges in the New Kent Road, Southwark, which necessity was particularly pointed out by Dr. Waldo, coroner, at a recent inquest on Mary Ann Harris, who was knocked down and killed by a motor-van in this thoroughfare; and will he take action with the local authority concerned to provide such street refuges or rests as soon as possible.

Colonel ASHLEY: The provision of street refuges in New Kent Road has been found impracticable owing to the presence of a double line of tramways in that thoroughfare. Special arrangements have, however, been made to enable persons to cross the road at selected spots under police protection, and I am informed that the question of increasing the number of such crossing places is at present under consideration.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the busiest thoroughfares in the south of London, and that it is almost impossible for old people and children to get across with safety, and will he expedite the arrangements so as to give further protection?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is a very crowded thoroughfare, I know. With regard to shifting the tramlines, the hon. and gallant Member is as well aware as I am that the rails would have to be slewed around, which would increase the danger.

Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting up boards like they do in Paris, in the Champs Elysées, where the crossings are very dangerous?

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider building a subway, so that these people can get across in safety?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be far better to pull up the tramlines, which are an obsolete system and a great danger to the passengers?

RAILWAYS (FATAL ACCIDENTS).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of fatal accidents on the railways of Great Britain, and the number of persons killed by the said accidents for the three years 1922, 1923, and 1924; and what steps are being taken by the Government to reduce the number and gravity of such accidents?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the last Annual Report on the Railway Accidents in Great Britain, which contains full particulars of the number of fatal and other accidents on the railways in 1922 and in 1923. The Report also contains information with regard to the steps being taken to reduce the number of these accidents, and in this connection I would also refer the hon. Member to the remarks I made on the subject when the Ministry of Transport Vote was under discussion on the 21st May.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the proportion of accidents in this country in relation to traffic is higher or lower than in other countries?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not answer that without notice.

UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called
to a resolution of the Berkshire County Council of 26th May, 1925, that the time has come when the Ministry of Transport should extend the principle of contributions hitherto limited to classified roads and should make grants out of the Road Fund towards the cost of improvement and maintenance of unclassified roads and thereby ease the heavy burden of the cost of road maintenance and improvement borne by the ratepayers, large numbers of whom contribute by motor taxes to the Road Fund; and whether, in view of the large increase in the Road Fund, he will now make a grant on a percentage basis for all unclassified roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I am, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, now considering whether and in what manner it would be possible to give increased assistance to unclassified roads, but I am not in a position at this stage to make any definite statement.

Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any power to prevent heavy lorries going on unclassified roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, there are powers vested in the local authorities to make certain representations, and then, after holding a public inquiry, it is in the power of the Minister to prohibit certain classes of traffic going on certain roads.

GREAT WEST ROAD.

Captain BRASS: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport what sum of money is to be expended on resurfacing the new Great West Road so as to make it safer for motor traffic in wet weather?

Colonel ASHLEY: There is no question of resurfacing the new Great West Road, but merely of "gritting" the surface of the carriageway, an operation which is estimated to cost between £2,000 and £3,000.

Captain BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of pressing forward the Roads Improvement Bill, so as to save this extra expense in experiments of that kind?

Colonel ASHLEY: No one will be more pleased than myself when the Bill goes through.

RIVER THAMES DIVERSION.

Colonel BURTON: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the congested state of traffic traversing London from east to west and vice versa, he has considered the advisability of setting up a Committee to consider the question of diverting the River Thames to the south in a line from a convenient point in western London to the vicinity of Tower Bridge in order that the present bed of the river might be converted into a highway for vehicular traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

NEW DOCK ROAD (MODEL).

Mr. BARNES: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to state when he proposes to have the model of the New Dock Road placed in the House for Members to view?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am happy to say that the model has to-day been placed in the Oratory Room, adjacent to the Cloak Room, for inspection by hon. Members. The size of the model precludes its being placed in the Tea Room.

Mr. BARNES: Can the Minister state now whether arrangements have been made with the authorities to commence this road, and when it is proposed to commence it?

Colonel ASHLEY: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

Colonel DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increase in the number of traffic accidents at cross roads, he will take such action with local authorities as will result in primary and secondary roads being denoted by signs of a standardised nature, capable of rapid interpretation and visibility, both by day and by night, so that the onus of caution can be made to rest upon drivers entering main roads, and so minimising the worst type of road accident?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant
Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancaster (Captain Brass) on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of these accidents occur to people coming up from the side roads into the main roads, not knowing they are approaching a main road?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think all motorists should approach corners with caution.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the removal of posts at dangerous crossing, and warning, in fact, the crossing traffic and not the main road traffic?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will he also consider the advisability of putting up notices at least 50 yards before they meet the danger? In the case of most of the notices, you are on the danger when you see the notice.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of fatal accidents caused by road motor traffic and the total number of persons killed by the said accidents for each of the three years 1922, 1923 and 1924; and what steps are being taken by the Government to protect the public against the dangers of road motor traffic?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to the returns presented to Parliament annually, the number of accidents resulting in death caused by mechanically-propelled vehicles other than tramcars in streets, etc., in England and Wales was 1,958 in 1922, 2,205 in 1923 and 2,750 in 1924. The question of strengthening the law is receiving consideration.

Captain A. EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman state how these figures compare with the United States on average, and whether an examination as to physical fitness and efficiency of the motor drivers is not carried out in the United States before a permanent licence is issued?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

LONDON TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. ERSKINE: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport when the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Traffic Problem is likely to be issued?

Colonel ASHLEY: The London Traffic Act requires the Committee to make an annual Report of their proceedings to be laid before Parliament. This Report will not be available until next year. The Committee, however, make recommendations to me from time to time on matters which I have referred to them, and I take such action on their recommendations as I consider desirable.

Mr. ERSKINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that the Advisory Committee will make no report for 18 months from the time when they were appointed?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is in accordance with the Act.

Mr. ERSKINE: It is a bad Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General if he has now come to any decision with regard to the recognition of the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have decided in certain cases and on certain conditions to grant "local" recognition in the provinces to the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks, and am in communication with the Federation on the subject.

PARCELS POST (INCREASE OF WEIGHT).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General if other countries than those referred to in the Board of Trade Journal on 4th June are being invited to accept parcels up to a weight of 22 lb.?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All postal administrations within the Empire, and, with a few exceptions, all foreign countries which accept parcels over 11 lb. in weight, have been invited to exchange with this country parcels up to 22 lb. Additional services will be introduced as and when arrangements can be completed.

BRIDGNORTH SUB-OFFICES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to transfer various sub-offices at present under Bridgnorth to other head offices; and, if so, for what purpose?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir.

BEDFORD POST OFFICE.

Mr. WELLS: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the new extension to the general post office at Bedford, fronting on to a developing shopping centre, is of ugly design, thus causing dissatisfaction to the inhabitants; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the appearance of this building to meet the wishes of the public?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The building referred to is a telephone exchange, a purely commercial building, and a back addition to the post office, facing a street of minor importance. The situation called for no architectural elaboration, and in view of the call for strict economy and the scarcity of mason labour, it was decided that a plainly-treated brick building would suffice. I do not, therefore, propose to make any alteration.

AUXILIARY POSTMAN, MEXBOROUGH.

Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Joseph Lythgoe, of 15, Garden Street, Mexborough, who served over eight years in the Army, including two years and nine months in the Great War, from which he was discharged as no longer fit for service, due to broken health, has been an auxiliary postman at Mexborough for four years and four months on a wage of 15s. per week, out of which unemployment contributions are deducted; that several men from Sheffield, Rotherham and district have been given permanent appointments in the Mexborough postal area during this period; and that Lythgoe has no chance of a permanency due to some Regulation; and, in view of the fact that his name is always passed over in favour of men who are wholly disengaged, will he inquire into this case and give the man an equal chance with other applicants for these posts, or at least see that his income for working is equal to unemployment benefits?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the main object of his answer, because this man is condemned to this starvation wage for ever unless some change is made in his favour or the Regulation altered?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I cannot; to do so would be to repeat the answer. But perhaps I might ask you, Sir, if it was not the practice some years ago, that questions relating to individuals should not be put as "starred" questions?

Following is the reply:

The registration and primary selection of candidates for appointment to full-time situations as postmen rest with the Employment Exchanges throughout the country, and, in fairness to all concerned, candidates are obtained through this source alone, preference being given to disabled men and among those to professional ex-service men. Mr. Lythgoe's employment as an auxiliary postman does not entitle him to any preference over other ex-service men and I am afraid that he cannot be considered for a full-time post unless and until he is put forward by the registration authority. The hon. Member would appear to have been misinformed regarding the length of Mr. Lythgoe's Army service as, according to both the Army records and the man's own statement, his total service with the forces was less than three years.

Mr. Lythgoe's pay is in accordance with the scale laid down for the work he is at present performing and this scale was agreed upon in 1920 with representatives of the staff. I am sorry that it is not possible to pay Mr. Lythgoe at a rate in excess of this scale and that it is not practicable to increase his working hours at present.

SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS (ASYLUM PATIENTS).

Mr. GROVES: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether accounts opened under the Poet Office Savings Bank are strictly guarded and retained until either the persons who deposited the money have authorised its withdrawal or in case of decease the legally declared authority;
is he aware that when persons having accounts with the Post Office Savings Bank become inmates of a county asylum their savings bank books are claimed by the local board of guardians' officials and amounts drawn from the book equal to the charge for maintenance; and whether he will inquire what action has been taken by the West Ham Board of Guardians respecting bank book No. 22,809, which the officer of the guardians requested from the relative of an inmate of the West Ham County Mental Institution?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Generally speaking, savings bank deposits can only be withdrawn by the depositor or his authorised agent, or in the event of his decease by his legal representatives. But as regards insane persons, I would refer the hon. Member to the Regulations under the Savings Bank Acts and to Section 299 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which provides that where a lunatic is chargeable to a Poor Law union, the guardians may obtain a justice's order for the seizure of such money belonging to the lunatic as the justice may think sufficient to pay the expenses of maintenance. No communication has been received from the guardians with respect to the account in question.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those conditions are not printed on the Post Office books; and is he also aware that in the case I have mentioned the book was obtained by the guardians' representative before any justice's order had been applied for?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As regards the first question, I am not aware of that, and perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down. As to the second, all I can say is, that no communication in regard to this account has taken place with the guardians or anyone else, and, in fact, no money has been withdrawn from it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES.

Viscount SANDON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will suggest to the Broadcasting Company, in the interests of general education, that their programmes should begin with a short announcement of the anniversaries of the day, such as those associated with political events, science, literature, art, and the Great War?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is the present practice of the British Broadcasting Company to broadcast an anniversary note each evening after the second news bulletin. The note usually deals in a descriptive manner with one important event associated with the day; and the company consider that these announcements are more likely to hold the interest of listeners than a recital of a list of events.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF LABOUR (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, during the discussions at the recent International Labour Conference, reference was made to the failure of this country to ratify the Washington Convention on Hours of Labour; and whether, in view of the importance of this country giving a lead by showing its respect for decisions of international labour conferences, he will consider the desirability of taking the necessary steps to ratify the Washington Convention?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. I am in informal communication with the Ministers of Labour in certain other countries on the lines indicated in the statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 1st May. Such exchanges of views necessarily take time, and I am not in a position at present to make any further statement.

Mr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the conference suggested will be held in conjunction with the International Labour Organisation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not wish to answer any hypothetical questions, but the hon. Gentleman may be quite assured that it is not proposed to leave the International Labour Organisation out of any negotiations that may be entered into.

Mr. W. THORNE: As soon as the right hon. Gentleman has the information indicated in the question and answer, will he notify the House and have it circulated to the Members

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Oh, certainly. As soon as it is possible to let the House know, I shall take the earliest opportunity of doing it.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Before the Minister asks the House to ratify the Washington Convention, will he make inquiries to find out whether Germany and America will be willing to conform to the hours laid down therein?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is amongst the many considerations which enter into the difficulties of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION (SWITCH GEARING).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of the results of his investigations upon the most suitable systems of switch gearing for electrical transmission; and whether he will offer full facilities for the test of oil medium switch gearing, in view of the essential of cheap and economical power transmission for national electric power requirements in industry before decision is arrived at for recommendation by the Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: The investigations to which my hon. Friend refers are not mine but are being carried out by the British Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association, which body has for the past five years been engaged on research in connection with switchgear, including switchgear of the kind referred to. I understand that the association are prepared to test switchgear of any kind which may be sent to them.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is already dealing with Cabinet suggestions in respect of the operation of electricity in this country; and is it not correct to say that this oil method of switching gear, if fully accepted or not, will make the difference as to whether electricity can be efficiently and economically used for power purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will be in a position to indicate to the House in what way the Government propose to afford some temporary relief to industry of the burdens imposed by the Widows',
Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill before the House is asked to pass this Bill through all its stages?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the announcement be made before the Finance Bill leaves the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; we are pressing forward the Finance Bill, and it will, possibly, be next week.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: If it is necessary to find the money to assist the pensions scheme, ought we not to know something before we finish the provisions of the financial year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought it was one of the oft-repeated arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the pensions scheme had nothing to do with the Budget.

Captain BENN: Apart from that debating point made by the right hon. Gentleman, where, may I ask, is he going to get the money to assist the scheme. Ought we not to know before the end of the Finance Debate?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR STOCK AND CONVERSION LOAN.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of accounts of £1,000 or under of registered Five Per Cent. War Stock and 3½ Per Cent. Conversion Loan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The numbers of accounts of registered holdings of £1,000 or under are approximately 2,647,000 for the Five Per Cent. War Stock, and 127,700 for the 3½ Per Cent. Conversion Loan.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD RESERVE, FRANCE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold reserve held by France for the years 1913, 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The gold holdings shown in the returns of the Bank of
France (excluding gold abroad) were as follow:


End of December.
Gold Francs.


1913
3,508,000,000


1923
3,676,000,000


1924
3,681,000,000

Colonel DAY: How much is that in real money?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES).

Mr. RADFORD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of having Members supplied with railway season tickets instead of the present free ticket vouchers; whether he is aware that, for example, the cost of 60 return tickets between Manchester and London is £231 10s., as compared with £124 8s. 6d. for a year's contract; and whether His Majesty's Government would be able, as large traders with the railway companies, to obtain for Members traders' contracts at still less cost?

Mr. GUINNESS: This matter is occupying my attention, but until further experience has been gained of the extent to which vouchers are used by Members of the present House I do not feel justified in recommending any change in the present system. I hope to re-examine the matter as soon as possible after the House rises for the Summer Recess. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 11th June to the hon. Member for North Bradford, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. RADFORD: Would the right hon. Gentleman circularise the Members of the House and ask them to state, approximately, how many journeys per annum they make between London and their constituencies in order to provide himself with the necessary information on which to base his decision?

Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the time taken up by going to the booking office and filling up the voucher, and then giving it in exchange for the ticket has on several occasions on a Friday afternoon led to hon. Members missing their trains?

Mr. GUINNESS: The second supplementary question, if I may say so, rather
supplies the answer to the first; because hon. Members are not, in advance, able to say they are going to travel, as it was found in the Parliament before the last when this matter was discussed. It is a natural tendency on the part of any Member to prefer a season ticket because it saves him the trouble of filling up the forms; at the same time it is not fair to the taxpayers of this country that they should be involved in the extra expense.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman obtain alternative quotations from the railway companies concerned in the meantime, in order to have the opportunity of comparing the figures?

Mr. GUINNESS: It will be time enough when we see that on the basis of the season tickets there will be a saving. So far as I can judge at the present time, season tickets, if applied generally, would mean an immense additional cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since he was assured six months ago that the Italian Government intended to initiate discussions in regard to its indebtedness of £550,000,000 to this country, he has received any communications indicating that the Italian Government will give effect to its intention; and, if not, whether the British Government proposes to take the initiative?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing at present to the replies which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 24th February and the 30th April last.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he used this promise, which he obtained from the Italian Government, to fend off the inquiries which hon. Members desired to make some time ago; and as this promise has not been fulfilled, and seems very unlikely to be fulfilled, can he now say when the Government will take the next step in approaching the Italian Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is rather a difficult matter, raising many international issues. I should gladly give the House any information I have. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put
down the question again in a fortnight's time, and it is possible that I might then be able to add a little to what I have said now.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the activity of the United States Government in pressing for the funding of their European debts, he will take the precaution of securing from the French and Italian Governments an explicit assent to the principle that no step should be taken by those nations to meet their obligations to the United States without a similar step being taken to meet their obligations to this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not consider it necessary to secure "an explicit assent" from the Governments of France and Italy to a principle, the justice of which is obvious, and upon which the declarations of His Majesty's Government have been unmistakable.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman see that at the present time we have no security whatever against the French and Italian Governments entering into separate agreements with the United States? Would it not be an easy matter to secure their assent that they should not do this?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have all the security implied in the natural strength of our financial relations with those two countries in these matters?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH STEEL (GOVERNMENT WORK).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in accepting the estimates of various steel using Departments, such as the Admiralty, War Office, and others, he will assure himself that only British manufactured steel is supplied in these several Departments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the general contract policy of His Majesty's Government to give substantial preference to the home over the foreign manufacturer. In the case of steel orders, the practice of the Departments is such as to secure that, except in rare and minor cases of a special character, only steel of home manufacture is supplied.

Sir W. SUGDEN: If I give my right hon. Friend details of where many major sections of German steel are being used by the Government, will he see that such examples are dealt with, and dealt with in a proper fashion as well.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be very glad to receive any information from the hon. Member.

Mr. CONNOLLY: May I ask if it is a fact that the stern castings of one of His Majesty's battleships now under construction on the Mersey have been manufactured in Germany?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I could not answer that without notice.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Yes, that is so.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Having in mind the large amount of unemployment in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I will; but I should think a question regarding the stern castings of one of His Majesty's battleships would more naturally be directed, in the first case, to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Mr. THURTLE: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the previous business experience of the present nominees of the Government on the board of the Suez Canal Company?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Previous Governments have suggested to the Suez Canal Company the names of the present representatives of His Majesty's Government on the board. Two of them (Mr. H. T. Anstruther and Sir Ian Malcolm) are equipped to be of assistance to the general business of the board by their knowledge of public affairs gained by long service in the House of Commons and in various Departments of Government. The third, Sir John T. Davies, was a member of the Civil Service. The purely shipping and commercial activities of the company, so far as they concern the British Empire and His Majesty's Government as principal shareholders, are carefully watched by the non-official British members, all of them experts in these matters, who are
known as the London Committee, of which Lord Inchcape is chairman, and which has access at all times to His Majesty's Government when consultation is necessary.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that Sir John T. Davies, prior to his appointment to this Board, had had no business experience whatever?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These appointments have not usually been given to persons of specialised expert business experience. but rather to people of general experience, who have Parliamentary or official knowledge of a wide character, derived from other careers in life.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the directorate of the Suez Canal has been used for fobbing off political aspirants of the Tory party?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hardly think that applies.

Mr. THURTLE: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Government have a controlling interest in the capital of the Suez Canal Company?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVENUE

Major CRAWFURD: 57.
asked the. Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate amount of revenue for the years 1921–22, 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25, under the separate heads of revenue, with the cost of collection, as previously given in the White Paper, Taxes and Imposts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am communicating with the hon. Member with a view to arranging for an unstarred question to be put down on this matter. The form in which he asks for the information would be very laborious to supply, but I think that I can meet his wishes, at any rate, to some extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the receipts from Railway Passenger Duty, 1924–25, amounted to only £427,000, whereas the duty is between 2 per cent.
and 5 per cent. of the passenger receipts which exceed minimum fares, he can make a statement explanatory of the apparently low yield of this tax?

Mr. GUINNESS: The exemption from Railway Passenger Duty of fares not exceeding minimum fares relieves from the duty approximately 90 per cent. of the total passenger receipts. The duty amounting to £427,000 received in 1924–25 was charged upon a total amount of £9,143,000 actually liable to duty, and the figure of £427,000 represents an average percentage of 4⅔ on that amount

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no attempt is being made to evade the intentions of the Legislature when this duty was imposed?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know what may have been the intention of the Legislature, but the regulations have been fully complied with.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPENDITURE RETURNS.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, in future publications of the Memorandum on present and pre-War expenditure, which has been published, on his motion, during the past five years, replace in Table I the figures relative to at least one of the War years, which have always been included until the issue of Cmd. 2428, this year, so as to afford a more complete view of the successive reductions in expenditure which have been effected?

Mr. GUINNESS: The table published this year is in a revised and, I think, much improved form, showing the actual net cost of the different services in 1913–14, and year by year since 1920–21. This gives the clearest comparison between pre-War and post-War expenditure. For the War years it is only possible to give a full analysis on a gross basis which is not properly comparable with the post-War net figures. I will consider in the next return whether, without a full analysis, some indication of the main war figures on a comparable basis can be given.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Is my right hon. Friend aware—he probably is—that in
previous years the expenditure of the War period has been given?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that is true, and it was partly to save printing and partly because all these figures were on record in previous returns, available to hon. Members, that the table was suppressed, but I will see whether the information can be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS (PAYMENTS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions, with reference to the practice of his Department to commence payment of the pension awarded from the date of the hearing of the appeal before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, whether, seeing that in some cases, on receipt of a complaint from the British Legion or other responsible body, his Department has issued instructions for the arrears to be paid from the date upon which the application was submitted to the Appeal Tribunal, he will, in justice to all appellants, issue instructions that awards shall date from the day on which the application was submitted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension as to the practice of the Ministry. Where the verdict of an Appeal Tribunal involves an award, or an increase of an award of pension, such award is payable not, as suggested, from the date of hearing, but from the date of appeal. Where, however, in the case of a final award, the Tribunal set aside the award on the ground that the case is not yet suitable for final settlement, any award that may subsequently be made in accordance with the finding of the medical board of the Ministry is allowed to date from the date of the Tribunal's decision instead of, as would otherwise be the case, from the date of examination by the medical board. The fact that, in certain exceptional cases it has been shown that the award should equitably be paid as from an earlier date, does not, in my opinion, warrant an alteration of the general rule.

Mr. BAKER: Is it not unsatisfactory that those persons who approach the Minister through Members of Parliament or through the British Legion should secure
a more favourable decision than those less fortunate people who endeavour to fight their own case?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not think they do. I do not think that anyone who approaches the Minister through a member of the British Legion gets any different treatment

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not contrary to justice that when a man has been refused his pension and an appeal is entered that he should not get his payments for the gap between the date when he first put in his appeal and its decision? That is, surely, very unjust?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: A man can appeal the moment he hears about his first award. He does not have to frame his appeal, he merely has to make a statement that he does intend to appeal.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: But how long will it be before his appeal is heard?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is not a question of how long it is before the appeal is heard. If he makes out an appeal, that is sufficient. He does not have to wait until the appeal has been heard.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that cases have remained from October till February—that though a man was awarded 100 per cent. pension, was restored to full pension, he lost the pension from October to February because of the board not having sat?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of the case, I will look into it. If he will read my answer he will see that where the verdict of an appeal tribunal involves an award or an increase of an award of pension, such award is payable not, as suggested, from the date of hearing, but from the date of the appeal, that is, the time when he first decided to appeal from the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE (TUBERCULOSIS TEST).

Mr. BROMLEY: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, seeing that the Govern-
ment has been offered, free of all cost, a test of a reputed cure for tuberculosis in cattle, he will give facilities for a test to be made?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a reputed cure for tuberculosis in cattle has been submitted to the Government for testing. I should be glad, however, if the hon. Member would communicate to me more particularly what he has in mind, so that I may have an opportunity of considering the question.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. ROBINSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of introducing Regulations providing that the export of aged and decrepit horses to Belgium shall be stopped, and that horses exported for consumption as human food shall be slaughtered in this country?

Mr. WOOD: A Departmental Committee has been considering the export of horses from this country to the Continent for some time past, and I cannot anticipate their Report. I must again correct the persistent misconception that decrepit horses are at present exported to the Continent, as, under the existing Regulations, all horses exported from this country must pass a rigid veterinary examination and satisfy the Ministry's veterinary inspectors that they are in every way fit to travel and to work.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases where the horses do not pass the examination at the docks, they are returned to the owners, and then they are shipped, if possible, at another port?

Mr. WOOD: No, I do not really think that that happens. If a horse is rejected at the docks, it is either slaughtered there or returned to its owner, and I am advised now that the system of inspection for export is so uniform that there is practically no chance of a horse rejected at one port being able to secure egress at another.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of this traffic altogether?

Mr. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the issue of the Report, which, I think, will be in the hands of hon. Members very shortly.

ALLOTMENT COMMITTEES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many urban authorities have at present allotment committees, and in how many urban districts, municipalities and county boroughs the number of allotments obtained under any Act of Parliament exceed 500 in number?

Mr. WOOD: The number of local authorities who are required under Section 14 of the Allotments Act, 1922, to establish an allotments committee unless exempted under that Section is 519. The committees actually set up by these authorities number 468. I regret I have no information as to the number of allotments committees established by authorities who come outside the scope of the section referred to. As regards the last part of the right hon. and gallant Member's question, it has been ascertained from the returns furnished by local authorities under Section 59 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, that at the end of 1924 there were 211 urban areas in which the allotments provided by councils under the Allotments Acts exceeded 500 in number. I may add that of these 211 areas, 203 come within the scope of Section 14 of the 1922 Act. I regret that I have no information as to the number of allotments provided by local authorities otherwise than under the Allotments Acts.

SUGAR-BEET FARMS (IRISH LABOUR).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 68
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether his consent has been given to the drafting of Irish labourers to work upon sugar-beet farms in Suffolk; and whether, in view of the Government subsidy for this part of the industry, he will consider advising the withholding of any portion of the subsidy until unemployed agricultural workers are absorbed in this area;
(2) whether he is aware that for the purposes of cultivating sugar-beet Irish labourers have been imported into the county of Suffolk; whether he is aware that experienced agricultural labourers
are now unemployed in this area; and what action he is prepared to take to enforce employment of local workers prior to men from other districts.

Mr. WOOD: I am aware that about 50 Irish labourers have come to Suffolk under an arrangement with the United Sugar Company, and have been offered employment by local farmers. My Department has been in communication with the company with a view to ensuring the employment of local labour, and it is understood that over a thousand of the men employed in cultivating sugar-beet are drawn from local sources. So far as my information goes there are no experienced, agricultural labourers now unemployed in the area, but I have no power to enforce the employment of local workers, even if available, nor have I any power under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, to withhold subsidy on the ground suggested.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a trade union covering the district is prepared to supply the labour and the transport from local men who are unemployed?

Mr. WOOD: I have seen such a statement, but I have also heard a statement that the unemployed whom the trade unions say they were prepared to supply were not willing to undertake the labour.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see the representatives of the trade union and get their evidence on this matter?

Mr. WOOD: I would prefer to consult with the hon. Gentleman in the first instance. As I have said in my answer, I have no statutory power to take action in the sense in which I think the hon. Gentleman would wish me to take action, even if I had all the information.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not get the Cabinet to agree about obtaining statutory powers? Does he not feel that there is a very strong feeling against importing labour in this way in view of the statement of unemployment in this country?

Mr. WOOD: There is no question of importing labour. As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the Irish
labourer is in the position of a British subject just the same as the Canadian labourer or the labourers of any of the Dominions, and under no provision with regard to aliens is it possible to exclude such labour.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman not get the power to do it rather than have our own people unemployed?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ANGLO-FRENCH NOTE).

Mr. DALTON: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Dominions were consulted concerning the terms of the Anglo-French note to Germany on security; and, if so, whether he will communicate the correspondence to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that the Prime Minister indicated that he might answer as to whether the agreement is so drawn that it requires the assent of the Dominions to it?

Mr. AMERY: That does not follow.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman was also asked whether he would enter into this agreement in view of the direct refusal of the Dominions to confirm it.

Mr. AMERY: The agreement has not yet been completed.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Have they not already expressed their views, and did not the Prime Minister of Canada state that he would have nothing to do with it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH FROM STRYCHNINE, BILLERICAY.

Colonel DAY: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case at the Billericay
Isolation Hospital, Essex, where a patient named Joseph Drage died as a result of the administration of an over-dose of strychnine by a temporary un-qualified nurse; and will he take such action as will allow of only fully qualified nurses being allowed to administer poisonous medicines to patients undergoing hospital or institutional treatment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to this most regrettable occurrence, and he has communicated with the Billericay Rural District Council to whom the hospital belongs. He has no control over the internal administration of isolation hospitals, but he is informed that the district council are taking all possible steps to prevent the recurrence of such an accident.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the issuing of instructions to these hospitals that where a poisonous medicine has to be administered by unqualified persons it should only be served out in a phial of one dose at a time?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; it would be useless for such instructions to be issued by my Department, because we have no control whatever over the administration of these hospitals I am glad to say, however, that these cases are very occasional, and I believe that in this case the council has taken such steps as will, at any rate, prevent the repetition of this unfortunate occurrence.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY MORTALITY.

Mr. GROVES: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the chief medical officer of the Ministry, in the 1924 Report on Public Health and Medical Subjects, states that, since 1902, maternity mortality has not declined proportionately in the same degree as the death rates from all causes of women at reproductive ages, or as the general death rate for all persons at all ages, or as the infant mortality rate for children under one year of age: and will he state what special steps he proposes to take to impress upon all local authorities the urgent necessity of ensuring efficient treatment for expectant mothers?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to his question of the 20th May on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BARKING EXCHANGE.

Mr. RHYS: 77.
asked the Minister of Labour when the Employment Exchange at Barking will be opened?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It is necessary to make certain alterations in the building to be used for the Exchange, which is being opened on a provisional basis. It is hoped that these will be completed and the Exchange opened by the middle of next month.

Mr. RHYS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the alterations have been commenced?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes. As I have already told my hon. Friend, they have not only been commenced, but we hope that they will be completed in the course of the next three weeks.

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS.

Colonel GRETTON: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed on 13th June, and the corresponding numbers last year; and can he state in what employments a less number of persons are employed?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 8th June, the latest date for which figures are available, the number on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,291,200, as compared with 1,027,515 on 9th June, 1924. An analysis of the unemployment figures by industries is made once a month and published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the June issues for this year and last, which give the figures for the end of May.

Mr. LUNN: Would it not be as well that the hon. Gentleman should publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT in addition?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I will certainly do that. The "Gazette" comes out to-morrow, and I did not want to give any information that might be regarded
as obsolete, and therefore I asked my hon. and gallant Friend to await the publication of the "Gazette."

Colonel GRETTON: Will not the hon. Gentleman give to the House of Commons the information which is in his possession to-day? He has got it, and is publishing it to-morrow in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," which is only seen by a limited number of persons.

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has just asked me if I will publish this return in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I will do very gladly.

Colonel GRETTON: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PEICES (FIXATION).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON (for Mr. FENBY): 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the growing practice among manufacturers of fixing the retail price of their manufactures and of the unwholesome effects of this practice on free competition, he will introduce legislation to compel such manufacturers to affix to their products a label intimating to the public that the retail price is so fixed, so that consumers may have full opportunity to resist the spread of this practice if they desire to do so?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As at present advised, I do not see my way to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DUTY CLAIM.

Mr. GROVES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade Whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the reasons why his Department persist in refusing a pension to the widow of the late Charles Frederick Donovan, R.S.2, No. 355,364, on the ground that he did not serve on War duty, notwithstanding the fact that Donovan received the King's special message of thanks for serving during the War in the mercantile marine and was awarded the British War medal with clasp and the mercantile marine medal with clasp, with precise printed information from the Board of Trade that they were awarded in respect of services
in the mercantile marine during hostilities; and whether he will grant this widow the right of representation to establish her claim for pension?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding, as the only communication the Board of Trade have received in this case is the hon. Member's own letter of 8th May, to which a reply was sent to the effect that, on the information at present available, it is very doubtful whether a pension can be paid. If the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate with me, I will be happy to go into the matter with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM (EMPIRE EXHIBITS).

Captain GEE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to allocate more space in the War Museum to the housing of exhibits showing the Empire's sacrifices in the late War?

Mr. GUINNESS: The question of providing additional accommodation is now under consideration but it will not be possible to arrive at any final decision on the matter until there has been an opportunity to consult the new governing body of the Imperial Institute among others.

Captain GEE: Will that be done in a fortnight's time?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that the new Governing Body will be constituted so soon, but I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member on the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH NAVAL PROTECTION.

Mr. LOOKER: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's ships are in a position to afford protection to British men, women and children living on the coasts and up the waterways of China, in view of the fact that naval protection is the only protection on which they can rely in time of sudden danger?

Mr. SAMUEL: The forces at the disposal of the Powers are believed to be
sufficient for the purpose indicated in any contingency that can be reasonably foreseen

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether, in view of the extent and disposition of the Fleet in China, as stated in the "Times" this morning, from which it appears that no ships are at present stationed at any coast port, the hon. Gentleman considers that the Fleet in China is adequate in numbers for the protective duties which rest upon it at the present moment?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the list which appears in the "Times" this morning only refers to British ships, and does not include ships of other Powers, but I will take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing the matter before the Admiralty, so that they can look into it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in consequence of the ships having been sent there, the trouble is decreasing or increasing?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the less that is said about this very delicate matter at the moment the better.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Would it not be possible for the Government to relieve the "F" and "G" squadrons in order to go out there to assist?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take on Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It has not been possible to arrange for an Allotted Supply day on Thursday, and, instead, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Tithe Bill, and the Report and Third Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Equivalent Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords], the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, and the Roads Improvement Bill; and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he has the conduct of the business to-night, and as he has put on the Paper, in accordance with his promise, the Motion of which he gave notice last night—may I
ask him, having regard to the fact that, as I understand, a Private Bill is going to be discussed to-night which will take some time, and there is the new Clause with regard to Lace, which may occupy some time, whether he would not think it preferable, seeing that this new principle is being introduced, that this Clause should be postponed until to-morrow, so that the discussion upon it may be taken at an early hour? I think it would facilitate business if it were possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see his way to do that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to deal with the question of this current transaction. The only wish of the Government is to facilitate the task of the Opposition in bringing up for public discussion under the best conditions the points on which they differ most from the Government. That is the only view that we have in the conduct of business, apart from reaching a conclusion at a reasonable period. In introducing the new Clause dealing with this topic—which we do not regard as creating a new principle, and which we do not regard as one of very great importance—we had hoped to meet the situation by putting it down on Report. That, I think, was thoroughly in accordance with the general practice. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a strong complaint, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and we deferred to their wish. Then I suggested that we should put this down to-day and that there should be a discussion to-morrow. Then the Leader of the Opposition expressed the hope and expectation that we should get all the new Clauses to-night, and in consequence of that I accelerated the final drafting of the Amendments that were necessary, and the draughtsmen were kept to a late hour of the night in order to meet the convenience of the House. In consequence, this was second on the list of new Clauses. In making up our minds to do this we had in mind the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that we should not lose time by facilitating the wish of the Opposition parties on the matter. Now we are entirely in the hands of the House so far as the arrangement of business is concerned. This is a matter not, as we
think, important, but certainly controversial, and if it be the wish to have it discussed to-morrow afternoon, we might go straight ahead with the old new Clauses to-day and reserve this special matter for a controversial discussion tomorrow, so long as it is understood that we get to the end of the Committee stage at a reasonable hour to-morrow night. That would entirely meet the views of the Government, and certainly would conduce to the most strenuous and vigorous discussion of the topics at issue.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only speak for myself and my friends here. In so far as we are concerned the suggestion was not put forward with a view to prolonging the proceedings—I think it might have a contrary effect—but rather with a view to having a discussion upon what is, after all, a new principle, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says now. At any rate, it is a very important proposal that he has put forward and it is desirable to have a discussion upon it in broad daylight rather than that it should be divided. We might, for instance, begin before eight and go on after eleven or twelve. That would be obviously undesirable, and therefore I suggest very strongly that it should be put down the first thing to-morrow, and I should say, at any rate, it would not tend to prolong the proceedings of the Budget as a whole if the Government could see their way to that course.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I only wish to make the suggestion that it would be a great pity to have to sit late two nights running if it can be avoided. On one day or the other we shall have to sit considerably beyond the usual hour, but it is a matter causing unnecessary inconvenience if we sit two nights running beyond the hour and yet make no effective progress.

Mr. MacDONALD: I think that it will be three nights running, but I have no objection at all. I thought it was possible to get this new Clause discussed in daylight to-day, but it does not matter. I understand that by the end of tomorrow's sitting the Committee stage will be finished. It is simply a matter of placing the horses, if the horse is not only to run, but to get through. I am quite willing to facilitate the business and to meet the convenience of the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If that is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs the Government will accept it.

Captain BENN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware that the Schedules are the last matter to be discussed on the Bill. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether any further Amendments on the Silk Schedule were to go down, and he intimated not. I see two new Amendments of some importance to the Silk Schedules were put down last night. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any more Amendments will be put down, because it is extremely difficult to fight this new tax or to criticise or examine it if the Government's proposals are to change every night.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite reasonable to ask that the Government should not take part in overcrowding the Paper with Amendments to their own proposal. The bulk of the Amendments are purely drafting, and there are two minor points. I will give an undertaking that no further Amendment shall be put down, except of course that we may have to meet some point that arises. Anything else will be reserved to the Report stage, but substantially this duty is now in its final form.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Cecil Russell Moore, C. B. E., for Ayr District Burghs.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed [Bill 194.]

SMALL SHOPKEEPERS (RESTORATION OF LIBERTY) BILL,

"to restore the liberty of small shopkeepers and for the prevention of profiteering in the retail trades," pre-
sented by Mr. MACQUISTEN; supported by Mr. Grant, Major Price, Mr. Remer, Sir Walter de Frece, and Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Customs duty on lace.)

(1) During a period of five years beginning on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, a duty of customs equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the goods shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of any of the following goods (that is to say):—

Lace of cotton, silk, or other fibre, whether made by hand or machine;
Products (not being solid fabrics) of the machines known as the Leaver's lace machine, the lace curtain machine, the lace net machine, or the circular lace machine;
Embroidery manufactured on net or any fabric which, or the main part of which, is eliminated before the article reaches its final stage.

(2) If any goods chargeable with duty under this section are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be goods brought back into Great Britain or Northern Ireland after having been exported therefrom for the purpose of undergoing any process out of Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the value of the goods for the purposes of this section shall be taken to be their value as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act after deducting therefrom such amount as is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been the value of the goods at the time of exportation, together with freight and insurance outwards.

(3) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that duty has been paid under this section in respect of any goods, and that the goods have not been used in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, a drawback equal to the amount of the duty so paid 6hall be allowed on the goods if exported as merchandise.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Captain BENN: I desire to say a few words about this, one of the most important Clauses in the whole of the Finance Bill. I was expecting that the Amendments in the name of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench would have been moved and discussed. If those Amendments had not been put
down, I should certainly have put down Amendments in my own name to the same effect. As they have not been discussed it only remains for us to make our protest on the Question that the Clauses be added to the Bill. A great many points of detail have been raised in connection with this Clause, and I do not want to elaborate them too fully, but there are some to which we have had no answer, and we should like a detailed reply from the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: On a point of Order. May I ask, for my own information and that of the Committee, what we are on at the moment?

The CHAIRMAN: The Question that the first new Clause on the Paper foe added to the Bill.

4.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: The first point I would like to raise about this Clause is one of detail. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade will be able to answer it with the assistance of his legal advisers. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that among the products to be taxed are
Products (not being solid fabrics) of the machines known as the Leaver's lace machine, the lace curtain machine, the lace net machine, or the circular lace machine.
This is a technical point which has been put to me by those engaged in the industry, and I should like to refer it to the President of the Board of Trade in order that we may understand clearly before we pass from this Clause how the matter stands. I am told that a great deal of the lace brought in from Switzerland is made on a machine called the Comely machine. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will kindly tell me whether the products of that machine, which is not mentioned in the Clause, are or are not to be subject to the tax? I am merely quoting from the technical brief given to me by those interested in the trade, but I am told that it is a single-needle-chain-stitch embroidery-machine, and is in a class of its own, and has no reference whatever to the multiple-needle-machines specified in the report of the Committee. The machine is called the Cornély machine, and I would like to know whether the products of it are included in the dutiable goods named in the Clause.
There is a further point which I wish to put, and it is in reference to what are called Swiss curtains. Of course, it may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that these Swiss curtains are foreign products, and that we should naturally desire to tax them in accordance with the general protectionist policy of the; Government, but I am informed by those engaged in the trade there is a peculiarity about the production of these Swiss curtains. The Swiss curtain is manufactured in Switzerland, but it is manufactured on a basis of net provided by Nottingham and on yarns supplied by Lancashire. It is therefore of considerable importance that we should know what the exact effect of this new Clause will be, because, if you are going to shut out these Swiss curtains, you are going to hit the export trade of Lancashire and of Nottingham. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that in that ill-advised adventure in which we taxed fabric gloves, we found that, so far from the tax being popular, it dealt a very severe blow at the yarn trade of Lancashire. We discovered that Lancashire yarn was sent to Saxony to be turned into the fabric gloves which were ultimately imported into this) country, and that in attempting to bolster up the small fabric glove industry, which by the way is in a worse position today than when the duty was instituted, we were doing great harm' to another by no means unimportant trade in the country.
I am told that a case in part materia is provided by these. Swiss curtains. The net itself is an export of this country, and the yarn itself is an export of this country, and all that happens is that these two exports go abroad for the purpose of manufacture by specially skilled people to be received back by us as an imported article. If these facts are correct—and I can only speak on the technical information supplied me—then this is indeed an object lesson in what Protection means. Here in a specific instance we have an illustration of the general case. You cannot strike at the import trade of the country without striking at the export trade of the country. Hon. Gentlemen complain that what we want is more export trade, but if we hamper and diminish our imports it means that we are destroying our export trade. Therefore, hon. Gentlemen are in an illogical position and
pursuing a course disastrous to the general trade of the country.
There is a further point which I want to raise. I asked a question at an earlier stage of the Debate as to whether any representations had been made by the Swiss Government in this matter, and I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me. I put the question some time ago, and no doubt he has been able to ascertain the facts, if not from his own Department, at least, from the Foreign Office. What do we hear about the representations of foreign Governments in reference to taxes? We are told that we are here to look after our own trade. That is the general argument. Unfortunately, if we hamper the trade of another country by tariffs, it is possible that a far greater injury may be done to us by them raising tariffs against our goods, and in the long run the result of these experiments in tariffs will be, as all experiments in tariffs must be, merely a diminution of international trade, and, inasmuch as this country, more than any other country, depends upon international trade, an injury to true British interests. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether any representations have been made by the representatives of the Swiss Government, I shall be very grateful.
I am informed that the figures for 1922 of purchases made by the Swiss from this country are as follows: 3,500,000 kilogrammes of cotton yarns valued at 39,000,000 Swiss francs, and nearly 3,000,000 kilogrammes of raw cotton cloth, valued at 28,000,000 Swiss francs. The total figure of British exports to Switzerland of materials used by the Swiss embroidery industry amounts to 67,000,000 Swiss francs. These are facts which bear directly on the duties in question. When we consider that, in addition to this, we are levying new duties upon Swiss watches and in other ways directly aiming our tariffs against the Swiss trade, I think the representatives of Lancashire will do well to inquire as to whether they are well advised to support a tax which may mean a considerable diminution in the value of trade in cotton yarns and in cotton cloth supplied by them to this country for the purposes of the manufactures to which I have referred. I do not know whether they are true or not, but these are the
facts supplied to me from authoritative sources. I have not the least doubt that the information comes from those who know, but I cannot give any personal assurance in the matter, because I am merely repeating the information given to me from official and authoritative sources. I should be very glad if the President of the Board of Trade in his reply could tell us whether indeed these injuries are likely to accrue from the result of this duty.
So far I have merely dealt with the duty in its specific trade aspect, but the new Clause has a very much wider and much more important bearing than that. I certainly would not be opposing it again for the third time in the course of these discussions if I did not feel that, if we gave way on this point, then indeed the door would be wide open for the consideration of a considerable general tariff in this country. There is no doubt that, although only a minority of the electors went to the poll in support of Members opposite—the Free Trade majority of votes cast being unmistakeable—in many constituencies Free Traders supported the Government on the strength of the specific pledge given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is most assidious in his attendance in the House, but I wish he could see his way to be present on one of these occasions in order to answer the questions which we propose to put, because it is really a matter of the value of his pledges. I have not been forward at all in assailing his punctilious observance of any promise that he has made. I remember quite well that he went to the country with disastrous results to his own party in 1923 on a matter of honour, and I have always admired him for it, and it is with great reluctance that I am coming to the conclusion that in this matter he is being over-ridden by those Members of his party, including no doubt the President of the Board of Trade, who are ardent Protectionists, and who are not going to allow any election pledges to stand in the way of the consummation of their desires. The Prime Minister, in speaking of this matter, said it was not his intention to use the Safeguarding of Industries Act—it was then called an Act, and it has now been substituted by a White Paper—as the thin end of the wedge. It was not the thin end of the
wedge; that was to say, it was a series of interrogatories to be administered to industries, and unless they were answered in the affirmative after inquiry duties would be refused. When we came to the debates in the House of Commons, when the proposed Safeguarding of Industries Bill was being abandoned, and the White Paper was being substituted, we pointed out that there was this great difference between the White Paper and the Bill, that, where as the Bill was a Statute and the Committee set up under it were required by Statute to fulfil certain conditions, the White Paper was nothing more than obiter dicta of the President of the Board of Trade. He could appoint whom he liked to the Committee, he could give what terms of reference he pleased to the Committee, and he could act as he wished on the report of the Committee, and therefore the safeguards which had been promised by the Prime Minister, and which were in fact provided by the Safeguarding of Industries Act, had disappeared with the abandonment of the statutory scheme and the substitution for it of the scheme of the White Paper. The Prime Minister, in that debate of 17th December last year, said, and it was quite a spontaneous and voluntary statement:—"This procedure is the only avenue by which protection can be obtained by industries in this country."
We further cross-examined both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade in reference to this matter, and the President of the Board of Trade was extremely specific in answering our questions. The case we made was roughly this: We said that if it was merely a question of a committee and an inquiry, then any industry could come forward and ask for an inquiry, and, under the beneficient æegis of a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade, could secure a duty. I am not entering into the general merits whether an industry could secure a duty or could not. It is not the issue which we are discussing. The issue which we are discussing is what exactly were the limits within which the Prime Minister and President of the Board of Trade proposed to act. We said that any industry under this scheme could secure a duty, and the President of the Board of Trade, in making his reply, answered specifically the points
that were put to him. He said in reply to a question of my own:
Before the industry can obtain an inqury it has got to show.… that the competition is exceptional, and the rates of imports abnormal. Therefore, it is idle to take one particular item in these conditions which have to be fulfilled, and to say that any industry could fulfil them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the large proportion of industries could not possibly fulfil the first condition, which is the abnormality of imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1925; cols. 809–10, Vol. 180.]
Later in the Debate, he went on to say that it must be shown that there was an abnormal quantity of imports by comparison with the pre-War figures. What is the case in regard to the Lace Duty? I lay aside altogether that part of the terms of reference which invited the Committee to reaffirm the decision which they had come to in a previous inquiry. That may have been a good derision or a bad decision. It was, at any rate, an unfettered decision, because they were not bound and the Government were not bound to use it as the thin end of the wedge. I take the first part of the terms of reference, which was strictly in accordance with the terms of the White Paper. They were asked:
Is it the fact that there is an abnormal quantity of imports in the lace trade compared with the pre-War figure?
What do they find? They said, in terms:
This condition is not fulfilled.
If the condition has not been fulfilled, then we could not recommend a duty. The condition did not particularly concern or bind the Committee, but it most particularly concerned and bound Members of the Government. It bound them in honour to the House and to those who had supported them in the country. The condition was not fulfilled. The figures are very well known. The annual imports now amount to £460,000, as against £1,463,000 before the War. That is to say, the imports of lace have shrunk by about one-third. Moreover, the home market is being enjoyed to a larger extent by the home manufacturers than before the War. They had 96 per cent. of what they had before the War in the home market trade, and the foreigner had only 67 per cent. of what he was enjoying before the War. Therefore, two things
emerge, and these are not facts which can be contraverted, one, that the imports from abroad have shrunk by two-thirds, and, secondly, that in the home trade the home manufacturers enjoy 96 per cent. of the pre-War trade, and the foreigner only 67 per cent. of his pre-War trade.
It is surprising in these circumstances that the Government have seen fit to propose this duty. It is a breach of the promise given by the Prime Minister. It is a serious charge, and I would not make it unless the facts were clear. I am not particularly enamoured of charges of breach of faith made across the Floor of the House; but this is a flat breach of faith. If hon. Members opposite deride that suggestion, I would ask them to justify the change, in view of the Prime Minister's promise. You cannot meet an argument which is serious and supported by considerations that cannot be controverted, by a derisive gesture. I assert that this is a flat breach of the Prime Minister's pledge. Apart from that, it means that the whole attitude of the Government has changed. It means that so far from their being bound by the terms of the White Paper, so far from being bound to introduce a duty only when the industry asking for that duty fulfils certain conditions, if we pass this Clause the door is wide open, and there is nothing to stand between this country and a succession of import duties which, in a few years, will make us a country with a high tariff, for certainly 33⅓ per cent. is a high tariff, affecting all our industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear," because, whatever the pledges given by the Prime Minister at the last election, the vast majority of Members on the benches opposite intend to turn this Free Trade, or this partially Free Trade, country into a Protectionist country.
That is the policy, as far as I understand it now, of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for the Howdenshire Division of Yorkshire (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson) is one of the silent Members, but not for the same reason that hon. Members opposite are silent, because, so far from accepting orders to maintain silence, he is the man who gives orders for silence. He
organises the party. Only a few days ago, addressing an august assembly, the Association of Conservative Clubs, he said he hoped the Government would not flinch for one moment if they felt it right to extend the Safeguarding of Industries Act in all directions that were considered necessary. That is not an irresponsible utterance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is opening up a general discussion when he develops his argument away from lace.

Captain BENN: I will not go beyond what is absolutely proper and within the terms of the Clause. Apart from the multitude of trade considerations, and the safeguarding of our own overseas trade, which are involved in this Resolution, there is a great major issue in this, and that is the abandonment of the attitude of the Government. The passing of this Clause makes a precedent by which the Government propose, desire to propose, and are advocating tariffs for all other industries. If we do not protest now, what shall we say when iron and steel come forward for their tariffs? It is a case which must be answered. The Prime Minister must tell us now, whether he intends to stand by the spirit and letter of his pledge, or whether that is thrown to the winds, and we are face to face with a Government determined to proceed, stage by stage, in the imposition of a general tariff on the trade of this country.

Mr. HARRIS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has made an unanswerable case for his criticism of the new Clause. It is very significant that the first new Clause in connection with the new Conservative Budget, embodying the new policy of the Government, should be a Protectionist Clause. It is very significant that in the Budget, Clause after Clause introduces the tariff principle. It will not be surprising, if this Government lasts out its natural life, if we have Budgets assuming more and more a Protectionist form. If we accept this precedent, and if one industry, applying to a very small part of the country—Nottingham, South Derbyshire, and some parts of Scotland—is to receive protection in this way, it will be very difficult to resist its extension.
I do not know whether hon. Members have studied these two very interesting reports. They are well worth studying, because they attempt to deal in some detail with the position of the lace and embroidery trade in this country. One thing comes out very clearly. Anybody who has any knowledge of the textile trade is aware that the real reason of the depression in the lace trade is not foreign competition, though that has been a factor, but merely the change in fashion. Lace is now being very little used compared with formerly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Currency!"] Currency is a small point. Ladies now, instead of being decked out in lace and embroidery, go to Ascot in artificial silk. Their jumpers and dresses are now knitted of artificial silk, and these garments do not require trimmings with lace. The result is that there is not the same demand for lace and embroidery. We have to face this very important fact, and we have to bear in mind that Nottingham has not kept pace with the times, while in Germany and France a large-amount of attention has been given to the question of design.
A friend of mine took the trouble to make inquiries in Nottingham with respect to the art school, and how much time and money was spent on lace designing. He was surprised to find that although hundreds of thousands of pounds had been spent in Germany in making experiments for the benefit of the lace trade, improving design and studying colour, in Nottingham they had neglected this most important part of the trade. The report points out that when it comes to the quality and durability of the material, the lace made in this country compared with lace made in any part of the world. Obviously, people to-day do not buy lace because of its durability and quality, but because of its design and beauty. The representatives of the lace industry in this House would be doing a far better service to Nottingham and the lace industry if they would stimulate interest in education, design and art, than in asking for an artificial stimulus by means of a tariff.
I want to deal with another side of the question. The Report points out that a very considerable part of the lace industry is the export trade. The home trade on the whole is good. The lace and the textile trade generally is suffering, not because of the depression in the home
trade, not because the public is not spending money on clothes—the large dividends of the retail stores prove that not to be the case—but because of the depression in the export trade, due to the contraction of markets, and the difficulty of meeting the competition of France, Germany and the United States of America in neutral markets, and in our Dominions beyond the seas. A great part of the lace which is exported from this country does not go in the form of lace but in the form of made-up garments. Since the War, owing to trade depression, very large sums of money have been invested in the made-up garments trade. A great part of that industry before the War was centred in Paris, Brussels and Vienna, but, largely owing to the high cost of raw materials and other circumstances, and the exchanges, this country has been able to draw its supplies unfettered from the four corners of the globe, and has been able to build up a large garment trade, employing a very large number of men and women, paying good wages, and the industry has proved very profitable. Now the Government is coming along and will tax a very considerable item in the raw material of this industry. The tax on artificial silk and on lace and embroidery will make it more difficult for those who have invested their money in the made-up garment trade to compete successfully with those competitors abroad who have all the prestige of an old established industry and the advantage of being associated directly with the vagaries of fashion.
The President of the Board of Trade may tell us that there need be no worry on that account, because adequate arrangements are made for drawbacks. But when you come to apply for a drawback on one particular item, like a piece of lace or other trimming, it will be found that the labour in filling up the forms and making the return to the Customs will be such that it will be far too expensive and troublesome to make it worth while. By putting this tax on lace, you may be giving a little stimulus to an industry in one part of the country, but you are striking a blow at an industry which is giving a great deal of employment to a large number of people in the East End of London, in Leeds, Birmingham and in other great industrial centres, and it is giving employment in a way that is a
considerable help to the families of people who are unemployed.
It has been a marvel to me during the last few years to see the wonderful patience of those who find themselves unemployed for three, four and even five years. It has been a mystery to me how they have been able to keep their homes together on the small amounts which they get from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and keep their families well-clothed and well-fed. On inquiry I find that it is largely due to the prosperity of the making-up trade. While other industries have become depressed, the garment industry has prospered. It has been enabled to draw its supplies of silk and lace without any interference from the Customs, while its rivals on the Continent of Europe have had all the inconvenience and expense of having to import their requirements through the barriers of the Customs. Whatever the intentions of those who advocate this duty may be, and whatever their desire to help industry, the more the duty is investigated the more it is seen that it is striking a serious blow at a trade employing thousands of men and women at good wages, and providing a very useful method of paying by exports for the imports which we have to bring into this country to keep the State going.
It is a source of wonder to people visiting London to find the large population that exists within a 10-mile radius of the City of London. In what is known as Greater London there are 7,000,000 people employed in various industries, and the figures show that there is no one predominant trade, but, if investigation is made, if the census figures are studied, it will be found that the largest industry in London is connected with textiles. The greater part of the textile trade is centred round St. Paul's Churchyard and Wood Street in big warehouses which are unlike any to be found in any other part of the world. In New York, Paris and Berlin such warehouses are quite unknown. Thousands of people are employed in these big warehouses, merchandising goods drawn from all the manufacturing centres of Europe. They give employment not only to salesmen, clerks, bookkeepers, and all the staff of a warehouse, but also to packers, carmen, case makers, and all sorts of people engaged in useful employment. The fact that the trade is
centred round the City of London is due entirely to the fact that London is the freest port in the world.
Goods come into the Port of London without any interference from Customs and people know when they visit London to purchase textiles that they are able to buy in the cheapest market. They can buy their goods from Switzerland, France, Italy and Germany and the stuff is imported free into England and exported without any inconvenience or trouble, without any of the efforts to get drawbacks and the necessity of filling up forms and going through all the difficulties of Customs tariff. It would be quite an education to the President of the Board of Trade to visit some of those City warehouses and see the amount of lace lying on their floors to be sold, not in the home market, not necessarily within the Empire, but in all the various countries of Europe. I think that quite unconsciously the President of the Board of Trade and the Government are striking a death blow at the great merchants of the City of London who have been the foundation of its prosperity, who have built up its wealth and whose names have become household words throughout Europe. I am afraid that as a result of the interference of the Government much of this important trade will be diverted from the City of London to go directly to the markets for which they are ultimately destined, and not only will the warehouses suffer but our shipping industry will suffer, and our dockers will find themselves out of work. Goods coming to London to be classified and sold, and then taken down to our docks and loaded on the ships—

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that all the goods in these warehouses contain lace?

Mr. HARRIS: Ladies' hosiery of every class and ladies' underclothing contain lace, and ladies' gloves—I do not say on a large scale. I do not want to pursue the subject. It is sufficient to say that it is an important fact. By this policy of tariffs on the textile industry the Government will handicap our merchants, and destroy this trade which is one of the most important industries of our country.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The Clause now before the Committee illus-
trates the growing demoralisation of the Government. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that in 1923 the Conservative party took the pledge as regards Protection—a complete pledge. At last their self-reliance broke down, and they went to the country to be allowed to take small nips under the doctor's orders. This is the second nip, and there are threats of larger nips of a much larger kind being taken in future. The Government have adopted the device of tariffs in two entirely different ways. The tariff on silk is one which will strangle a growing industry. The tariff on lace is proposed to assist what is and what must be a decaying industry. The doctor on this occasion has not said that the nip was necessary to restore the patient. Knowing the growing weakness of the patient, he has just said "let him have a nip," not because it is necessary but because he thought that the patient would like it.
It has been pointed out, time and again, in this House—and we have had no complete answer from the right hon. Gentleman—that the Committee which investigated this subject did not show that this industry was of a kind which the Government had in mind at the beginning of this year when it proposed its safeguarding of industries policy. Moreover, Members who have read the Report will have found that the Committee, without enthusiasm, and because they could not very well say anything else, admit that the industry is reasonably efficient. I wish to suggest that part of the trouble to-day is the fact that the industry is not reasonably efficient. If hon. Members would take the trouble to look up the first edition of the Committee's findings in the Report of 1923, they will find really serious charges against the organisation of the industry on its commercial side, and it is preposterous that an industry, which allowed itself to become out of date and inefficient, should receive the qualified blessing of being reasonably efficient and come to this Committee and ask for special assistance at the expense of other industries and of all other classes of the community.
The lace industry to-day as regards its organisation is very much where the cotton and woollen industries were eighty or ninety years ago, and with this added difficulty, that fashions have changed and
the industry has not adapted itself to new circumstances, and here we are being asked to apply a remedy that has nothing whatever to do with the economic difficulties of the industry. It seems to be admitted generally that the difficulties with which the lace industry in this country is faced arise from the state of the exchanges and from a change in fashion. No tariff, even if you make it 100 per cent., is going to have the slightest influence on fashion. Nobody will make me believe that to put a duty on lace will encourage ladies to wear lace, and unless there is a great consumption of lace and a great use of lace the position of the industry must continue to be disastrous. On the ground of fashion the tariff will do nothing. As regards the effect of the collapsed exchanges upon the imports, nobody has ever proved in1 this Committee that the imposition of 33⅓ per cent, will have the slightest effect on the rectification of those exchanges. In other words, the tariff will not deal with that evil.
The two things necessary, even in the present inefficient state of the industry, to put it on its legs are a change in fashion and an improvement in the exchange. If a tariff could effect an improvement in either of these things there could be a case made for it. But unless hon. Members opposite can show that the tariff will assist the industry in either or both of those directions, they will not have in the least established any case for its imposition. I submit that this is unwise legislation. It will only whet the appetites of other industries, and at its very best it can only postpone the ultimate decease of the lace industry. The salvation of the lace industry lies in the adaptation of its resources to newer needs. If it is going to wait for a change in fashion it may have to wait for a very long time. If it is going to wait until the exchanges are rectified and the internal value of the franc approximates to its external value, it will have to wait for a very long time, and this method of fining the consumers of lace articles in order to subsidise the lace industry does not help it, but makes it merely an industry existing by the charity of the mass of the people of the country.
I have listened to most of the Debates on this question, and I have not heard what could be regarded by any inde-
pendent body of men as any argument in favour of this duty that carries any amount of conviction. As I said before, the self-reliance of the Government is going from day to day. They have had their nips. The pledge they took so solemnly 18 months ago is going to be torn up and thrown away, and the party is going to make itself and the country intoxicated with Protection.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This appears to be a very small matter of dealing with a very limited industry not employing a very considerable number of people, and, therefore, it appears as if we were exaggerating the importance of the proposal made by the Government. But no one who looks, not merely at the proposal itself, but at the principle behind it, and to what it is capable of being applied, can fail to realise that this is simply the advance guard of a general tariff. I remember perfectly well when the Prime Minister in the Debate, I think, on the Address, announced for the first time the general outline of the policy of the Government, I got up immediately, and I said, "This is practically the announcement of a general tariff for this country." There is no principle in this Clause which could not be applied to every other industry throughout the country. I pointed that out at the time. There were conditions, then indicated by the Prime Minister, which have not been fulfilled in this particular case. Under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, as was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech the other day, it was necessary you should prove your case in respect of every industry, that, in consequence of the exchanges, goods were dumped into this country at something considerably under cost price, and under conditions which would make it impossible for the industries of this country to compete. But under that Act the remedy was only applicable to the particular country in respect of which the case was made. Under this Clause, having found certain conditions, then the tariff is to be applicable to countries where those conditions do not in the least apply.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out in his reply any industry in this country which could not make a case for a tariff under the con-
ditions applicable to the lace industry. What is it the Government are doing? They are reversing the whole constitutional process of this House. The process of this House is, first of all, to introduce a Bill, then to have a Second Reading upon its principle, then to enter into the various Clauses, and then to have a debate on the Third Reading, where you again discuss the general principle. What is their method now of setting up a general tariff? They start with the Clauses. There is no Second Reading; there is no introduction. There is purely a Clause. You begin your process in Committee, and you carry your Bill, not by First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and Third Reading. You carry it by instalments from year to year. You carry two Clauses this year. Next year there will be two or three Clauses carried, and then the third year and so on. By the end of the four or five years, if the Government remain in power, you will find a general tariff carried without the principle of a general tariff ever having been discussed in this House.
It is not merely a departure from the pledge of the Prime Minister. It is a gross departure from the whole principle of Parliamentary Government in this country—a complete departure. This is the introduction of a great new principle, without any discussion of that principle, but merely by a Clause this year, and another Clause next year, and I venture to predict that, by the end of the term of this Government, there will be hardly any industry which will not have made the application, and there will be no industry to which you can either logically or in practice deny what you are granting to the lace industry. You are beginning in a very small way. It is just like the description in that great novel by Ibancz of the first appearance of the German Army. You just see one solitary horse on the horizon, but behind it is the whole army. It is the same here. This is the little solitary horseman patrolling the road, but behind will be the whole legions of the right hon. Gentleman's army, desolating the country and leaving it to others to find reparation. [Interruption.] If he finds as much as I did, I shall be quite satisfied.
The Government cannot, if they assent to this, refuse the same redress, if re-
dress it be, to any other industry in this country. Let them point out one. Here in this White Paper the first question that was put—and it is a very vital one —was whether there were any very abnormal conditions. That was supposed to be of the very essence. The whole point was whether, owing to abnormal conditions, there was an exceptional inrush of goods from foreign countries with their debased currencies, with their low conditions of labour, which made it impossible for British industry to defend itself. That is the whole point of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I am neither defending it, nor abandoning it, because it is to come to an end this year. But it dealt with that situation. What is the point here? That you have the same conditions exactly as you 'had in 1914 before the War. The post-War conditions, which were to justify exceptional legislation with reference to these industries, according to the report of the Board of Trade, do not apply in the least. It simply means that the Government have decided, by instalments, to carry a general tariff in order to avoid a general pledge. That is not quite fair to the electors of this country. I 'have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at that box say, that at least one million Liberal voters voted for his friends and himself at the last election. I venture to say everyone of them was a Free Trader. Would they have done so if it had been known that the Prime Minister meant by installments, Clause by Clause, year by year, to introduce legislation that in the end would have the effect of a general tariff, and by that means avoid the general pledge he had given, upon the strength of which he got the million votes, without which he would not have been Prime Minister to-day?
This is the beginning of the end of our present fiscal system. I hear that the iron and steel trade is making similar representation. I know I cannot now "discuss the merits of that, but I do want to point out that there is nothing the Government could say in resistance to that claim, after they have incorporated this in the Bill. If the woollen industry were to do it, it could also prove that woollen goods come from France, manufactured by labour working for longer hours, under worse conditions, at lower pay. So could the cotton industry. The tinplate
industry in South Wales certainly could do the same thing. There is not an industry in this country that cannot make the same case that the lace industry has made, and once the Government on their authority have carried this thing through the House of Commons, because it is their authority that does it, and the House of Commons ratifies it, and Parliament ratifies it, they cannot refuse it to any other industry. Let there be no mistake. This is just the first Clause in a general tariff for this country, and before the end of this Parliament, I venture to predict the whole fiscal system of this country will have been completely subverted, and turned upside down, and it will have been done by a Government who got into office on a solemn pledge that they would do nothing of the kind.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not rise for the purpose of replying to the speeches which have been delivered in this Debate from the other side, or to the arguments which have been advanced in support of the proposals that we are now discussing. Neither do I propose to say anything about the general merits or demerits of this proposal. The subject was very fully discussed three or four days ago, when the views of our party were clearly stated, and they were expressed by our votes in the Division Lobby. I associate myself entirely with what was said a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), and also with what has been said by those on the other side of the Gangway who have taken part in this Debate. This proposal is a deliberate abuse of the pledges which secured the return of so many Conservative Members at the last election. As I have said before in the course of our Budget Debates, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, who has a reputation for being a man of honour, should continue to remain silent under the charges which are being made against him. There can be no doubt whatever that there is no answer to the concluding part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. We had a high duty on silk proposed in this Budget. The Budget had not been introduced more than two or three weeks before we got a second instalment of Protection. All that has happened within a month,
and I ask the Committee to remember that when we were discussing the White Paper some months ago, we were told that the method of procedure would be to bring in a new Revenue Bill every time a Committee reported in favour of a duty being made for the protection of an industry. There are a lot of Committees sitting. Applications are coming in, I believe, almost daily to the Board of Trade for further Committees to be set up, and I can well understand what an encouragement this will be to every trade that wants relief to save itself the trouble of keeping its house in order. This is a precedent for all these industries to make similar applications. Other Committees have been sitting and further Revenue Bills will, no doubt, be introduced eventually. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs makes no exaggerated or fantastic anticipation when he says that if this Government remains in office for three or four years it is very likely that we shall have a general tariff in this country. Were the Government returned to power for that? They were not. Every time this question has been submitted to the country it has been defeated by the overwhelming vote of the electorate. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not so ignorant of the state of things in this country upon this question as to doubt the fact that if they had the courage now to challenge the verdict of the country upon this matter, the verdict of the country would be what it has been every time the issue has been submitted. This is a mean and contemptible way of trying to get what the country has repeatedly refused to give any Government the power to do. The country knows what the Prime Minister said he would not do. This is Protection by means of the back door.
I am not going to argue the general question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us repeatedly during the last few weeks that he is relying not on the merits of this proposal but on those servile forces which are behind him. Those same servile forces will carry this proposal into law. Therefore, having made our protest, having stated our objections, we will for the time being be content. But this question will not be settled when this proposal has been placed
on the Statute Book by the votes of hon. Members opposite who have betrayed their election pledges. From one point of view the action of the Government might be welcomed, because it shows that the Tory party to-day is the Tory party of the past. It is a party which has no scruples. It uses political power to serve the private and personal and selfish interests of its own friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Yes, it is a shameful thing, and I am very glad to see that there is at least one hon. Member opposite who agrees with me.
I rose for the purpose of asking for information upon a matter which does not appear to be very clear in this Clause. The President of the Board of Trade will remember that when we were discussing this matter some days ago, the question was raised as to whether under the Ways and Means Committee Resolution it would not be possible to put a double tax on an article which contains silk as well as lace, or lace composed partly of artificial silk or real silk. The wording of the Ways and Means Resolution certainly was open to that very commonsense interpretation. But the President of the Board of Trade said that that certainly was not his interpretation, and he gave an undertaking that the matter would be put beyond all doubt. I do not see that he has put the matter beyond doubt in the Clause that is now before us. It is not enough for him to say that there shall not be a double duty. The Clause makes no reference whatever to the other parts of the Budget which imposed duties on silk and artificial silk. It seems to me that these two Clauses in the Finance Bill will be reciprocal, and that under this Clause it will be possible for a duty of 33⅓ per cent. to be levied, and then there will be a Clause empowering a duty to be levied upon imported articles which contain silk. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to make that point clear and to tell us how the possibility of double duty is safeguarded under the terms of this Clause.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Before I come to the controversial aspect of this Clause I will reply to the specific point raised by the last speaker. There are many Clauses on the Order Paper, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look forward to page 898 he will see that there
is a proviso to be proposed to Schedule 2, page 21, line 12, at the end to insert the words
Where any article chargeable under this Schedule with a duty equal to a percentage of the value of the article is also chargeable with the duty on lace imposed by this Act the value of the lace in the article shall be excluded in computing the value of the article for the purpose of the duty under this Schedule, and where any article chargeable with duty under this Schedule as a tissue is also chargeable with the duty on lace imposed by this Act, the duty under this Schedule shall not be charged except in so far as the amount thereof exceeds the amount of the lace duty.
I am advised to deal with the matter in that way, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that carries out the proviso which I moved yesterday to the Financial Resolution. The Amendment referred to can be discussed when we come to the Schedule. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith Burghs (Captain W. Benn), who opened this Debate, raised questions both particular and general. I will deal with his particular points first. He asked me a question about the Cornély machine. The products of that machine will be dutiable in so far as they are lace or embroidery which is dutiable under the latter part of the Clause. The latter sentence with regard to the products of particular named machines, I am advised, does not reduce the scope of the general provision that lace of cotton, silk or other fibre should be subject to duty. The Cornély machine, I understand, does in fact produce a lace which is of the same nature as the lace and embroidery which is intended to be safeguarded under the provisions of this Clause, and so far as material of that kind is produced on the Cornély or any other machine it will be dutiable under the general words of the Clause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next raised an argument about Swiss curtains, and said that if a duty were imposed upon these it would shut out Nottingham lace-net from Switzerland and also Lancashire yarn. That is an old argument of his which has been proved fallacious over and over again. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that he advanced that argument about yarn on a previous occasion. The only disadvantage of that argument was that what he foretold did not happen. In the case he cited he
prophesied that fine counts of yarn would suffer. In the event they proved the most prosperous section of the cotton trade.
There are really two complete answers to his arguments. If these curtains are in future made in Nottingham instead of in Switzerland, the Nottingham net will be used in Nottingham instead of being used in Switzerland, and the Lancashire yarn will be used in Nottingham instead of in Switzerland, and it will be no disadvantage to the Lancashire spinner or the Nottingham net maker if the finishing process of his product is done in this country rather than in a foreign country. There is a further answer to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to be found in the second Sub-section of this Clause, which provides that where an article which is dutiable is exported in order to undergo in a foreign country a further process, and is then reimported into this country, it will bear the duty only upon the added value of that further process. If Nottingham net is purchased, worked upon in Switzerland and reimported to this country, the only duty which will be chargeable will be the duty on the added value. The hon. and gallant Member's argument on that point is completely met.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked "Is it a fact that representations have been made to us by the Swiss Government?" Yes, it is a fact. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, apparently, never appreciate something which foreign Governments have no difficulty in appreciating, and that is, that in matters of this kind we regard it as our duty to consider our own people first. That is an argument which no foreigner has ever had the least difficulty in understanding, for the simple reason that he always follows it in practice. What the foreigner cannot understand is the perpetual attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is always prepared to sacrifice the interests of his own nationals for those of foreign countries.

Captain BENN: Since the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to make those foolish and offensive observations, will he deal with the question of the imports, of some value, to Switzerland?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will deal with all the points which the hon. and
gallant Gentleman has made. His suggestion has always struck me as remarkable. He says you must always take any attacks made upon you lying down, for fear that something worse should happen to you. That argument is unintelligible. Foreign countries will continue to buy exactly where it suits them to buy. There may be many arguments in favour of Free Trade or in favour of Protection, but I do not think that anyone would advance the argument that Protection was wrong because it gave you a weapon. The argument has been that in spite of that advantage—undoubtedly it is an advantage—there may be many other reasons which make protection wrong. I prefer to leave that argument for the moment. What is perfectly certain is that you are not going to make your own bargaining power with foreign countries less because you have a certain number of duties. If foreign countries find it extremely profitable to trade with us they are certainly not going to cut off their noses to spite their faces because we in one particular do what they do in a very large number of instances. Nor are the Swiss Government the least likely to be shocked at what is being done. When the hon. and gallant Member reads the earlier report of the Committee he will find that the Swiss Government have actually gone further and subsidised their own lace trade where they found it in their interest to do so. Therefore I think they will experience a great deal less difficulty than the hon. and gallant Gentleman in accepting what we are doing on this occasion. The hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) went on to say that the lace industry was inefficient, that it took no trouble in training, in studying new designs and so forth. Again I take the report of the Committee rather than the testimony of the hon. Member. In their earlier report in paragraph 44 they say:
We were glad to learn also that the Federation of Lace and Embroidery Employers' Associations is working with the school of art and University College at Nottingham to co-ordinate the instruction in the manufacture and sale of lace given at those centres with the needs of the industry. We may say that during the whole course of our inquiry there have been no criticisms levelled against the technique and durability of British laces and it is clear that the technical equipment and potentialities of the Nottingham lace industry reach a high standard.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I have not mentioned that matter. I referred specifically to commercial organisations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look a little further into the Report.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It was the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) who made the reference.

Mr. HARRIS: May I make my point clear. I desire to make it plain that Nottingham technique and the durability of the lace are perfect. It is in design where they fail, and it was to artistic development that I was referring.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what is dealt with in the earlier part of the passage which I have read out. Hon. Members opposite may attack this proposal on the broad grounds of Free Trade as they will, but it is a little unfair upon an industry which is struggling against such difficulties and which has shown both efficiency and enterprise, that these comments should be made upon its designs and the energy which it has put into its business, and I think hon. Members might find better occupation than running down the industry in this way. Not only is the industry to be prevented by them from getting any form of safeguarding, not only is it to be left free to face every wave of competition, however unfair, but it is also to be advertised to the world by hon. Gentlemen opposite as inefficient, inartistic and out of date. Another hon. Member opposite went on to give a long description of the industry, with which a good many others are acquainted, including the Committee who heard a great deal of evidence, and he said the entrepôt trade was going to be seriously prejudiced by this proposal. The Committee went into that question at their previous inquiry, and also at their last inquiry, and they found as a fact that there was no risk of that happening—in fact, that there is less risk of that in this than in any other industry you could take, for this excellent reason that five-sixths or more of the entrepôt trade is done through bills of lading, and the process is of the simplest. A bond is entered into and the goods passed through on the bill of lading; the bond is cancelled at the port of exit, and no duty
is paid at any time; and that applies to five-sixths of this business. With regard to the balance of the trade, the goods are either taken into a bonded warehouse and dealt with there, or, if they are brought out of bond and subsequently exported, a drawback will be claimed under the provision made by this Clause. As a matter of fact, in lace there is always a serial number to every design, and therefore it is singularly easy to follow up a particular entry and claim the drawback. It has also been said that it is absurd to put on this duty because this industry depends in large measure upon its export trade, and you would be doing no good to the export trade. That is one of the things into which the Committee has gone, and they are at some pains to point out that
the position of the industry is such that few firms have the capital to embark upon the necessary expenditure and in a depressed industry such as lace it is practically impossible to attract fresh capital at present. There is no doubt in our minds, however, that given greater security of the home market Nottingham firms will be able to reduce their overhead charges and should thus compete more successfully in the export trade which was and still is the main support of the industry. The same remarks with regard to the difficulties to be faced apply to the embroidery section of the industry.
In so finding the Committee are only finding what they consider to be a fact, having heard all the evidence, and they are carrying out the admirable principle enunciated by the Chief Priest of the Free Trade Doctrine when he said:
You cannot do an export business without home trade. There is not the slightest doubt that without the solid basis of home consumption your export trade would simply be a flower without any stem or root. If you allow the home trade to be cut away the export trade will follow."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1921; col. 2275, Vol. 143.]
The right hon. baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has asserted that as being one of the great fundamental principles of Free Traders from Adam Smith downwards, on many occasions. Therefore, it does not rest with his followers or pupils to repudiate the pure milk of that gospel at this stage, least of all when they have welcomed him back to the fold. The lost leader has returned, but his doctrine is still sound and in the line of direct inspiration.
I come to the mare general but no better established charge made by various speakers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that this was the road to a general tariff. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had made such an assertion as soon as he heard the Prime Minister's speech in this House either during the Debate on the Address or during the Debate on the safeguarding proposals. As a matter of fact, he and his colleague, the Earl of Oxford, said it a great deal earlier. They said it all through the last general election and before the last general election. When the Prime Minister made a speech in the Albert Hall, in which he said that in this safeguarding Measure or analagous Measures we held ourselves free to safeguard any industry which was being attacked or menaced by unfair foreign competition, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague leaps into the breach.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I made a most careful note at the time of the eloquent speeches by the Earl of Oxford and I am sure my right hon. Friend does not dissociate himself from them.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has turned out to be right.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What he said to-day was that we are doing something new and unexpected. What he said all through the election was that this could be done within the Prime Minister's pledge. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot charge the Prime Minister with breach of faith for doing something which he himself during the election said was going to be done.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not the fact that on the first occasion the Prime Minister addressed the party as Leader after the General Election he specifically said at the Hotel Cecil that this was going to be the policy of the party whatever else might be decided upon

Captain BENN: Was not that statement made with the full knowledge of the pledges given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am prepared to leave it to this House and the country to judge as to the pledges given by my leader and by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, but there cannot be anything in this matter to cause such grave indignation as hon. Members profess. As a matter of fact, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really believes all this talk about this being the avenue to a general tariff. All I can say is he has not carried his instructions very far, because I observe that the gentleman who is now contesting Oldham in the Liberal interest, Mr. Wiggin, says quite frankly and perfectly truly that he does not think a tax on lace will be a breach of the Prime Minister's pledge, as the Prime Minister said he would use the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That shows that even when faced with an election the right hon. Gentleman's recruits do not take the exaggerated view which he has taken, and, moreover, it shows that Lancashire is not so terrified of the prospect of what we are now proposing. The only argument on which hon. Members have been able to found anything upon has been in regard to the question of abnormality. In the speech which I made in this House I said I was not asking the House to bind itself to a formula and still less to the construction of a formula. What I said was that we were going to ask a number of questions which would be answered by the Committee, and then the House would decide upon the merits. I am by no means sure that if you take a reasonable definition of the word "abnormal" the imports are not abnormal. The imports are smaller to-day than before the War, as everybody knows, but the industry itself has enormously contracted, and the Committee say that they cannot tell whether the ratio to production is g eater or less.

Captain BENN: They say something quite different from that.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is very little evidence as to what the volume of production is in relation to the imports, and the imports are steadily rising at the present time.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the Committee definitely found in so many words on this point. They say:
We have arrived at the conclusion that imported laces are not being retained for
consumption in the United Kingdom in quantities which can be described as abnormal.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quite agree, but their test of abnormality is the relation of the imports to the volume which came in before the War. I do not think you can possibly take that test, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he takes that test and takes the volume of pre-War imports on all occasions, will find himself in a very difficult position in following that argument. If he insists on applying it in cases of industries where the production has contracted, he must equally apply it in cases where the production has expanded, and it might well be that the imports in an industry which has greatly expanded were more in volume than they were before the War, although quite obviously not abnormal. If he accepts the volume of pre-War imports as the test in one case, he has to accept it equally in the case of the industry which is expanding.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Did not the Committee specifically state that the second test was not met?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. They say they do not think the amount is abnormal, but I will put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. I have always maintained that what the House requires are the facts. Even assuming, against myself, that of all the questions asked, the Committee find against this industry upon one question, and for this industry upon the five or six other questions, the right hon. Gentleman says, "If that is so, however strong the case which is made out on all the other heads, you are absolutely precluded from proposing a duty to the House." Let him take the converse case. Supposing you had a case where the Committee answered all the questions in the affirmative, would he then say that we and all parties in this House were bound to agree to a duty in all circumstances? You must not put one construction upon it in one case, and refuse to accept it in the other. I am prepared to stand in this case upon the perfectly simple ground which I have stated throughout, that you refer the facts to a Committee to find, and, having referred those facts to a Committee, you then bring the facts to the House, and you
either propose a duty or you do not, and then the House in its regular procedure is free to vote. The hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) said that this is an industry which is not of a kind which you ought to protect. Again let us see what the Committee find with regard to that. They say:
Unemployment in the lace industry is due to the combination of a number of causes. Anyone of these would be serious alone. The cumulative effect appears to be producing a psychological reaction in the Nottingham lace industry which renders the sense of depression still more acute, and the consequences may be nothing short of disastrous. We feel that the industry is drifting into a position from which recovery will be impossible.
If that is not a condition in which the lace industry is entitled to assistance, then, I am bound to say, I do not know what is. The right hon. Gentleman said that any industry could come in. Does he really think the position is so serious in every industry in this country that a Committee would find as a fact that the case was as grave as that of the Nottingham lace industry? If he does, then I think he should reconsider many of his previously expressed opinions. We were told—and I am bound to say that I found it difficult to follow—that we were reversing the constitutional process of this House by the action which we were taking. I should have thought we were doing exactly the opposite. I should have thought we were doing just the very thing which was strictly constitutional in introducing this duty in this way. The constitutional procedure of this House is to deal with duties in a Finance Bill, and that is exactly what we are doing, founding our Clause on a Ways and Means Resolution. If one were to search the records in the OFFICIAL REPORT of what were much greater innovations, such as the Land Taxes in the Budget of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, one might find that that was the way in which a very large number of duties—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going rather a long way from this particular duty.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to put in a few words on the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quite agree, Mr. Hope, and I will simply leave it at this, if I may, that, as long as there have been Finance Bills in this House, they have been the recognised method of imposing taxes, and that is the procedure which we are adopting to-day. With regard to pledges, so far from breaking any pledge by the introduction of this duty, in face of the facts found by that Committee, not once but twice, in face of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said, when he re-assumed the leadership of his party—

Captain BENN: Re-assumed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: —a pledge reiterated throughout the whole country over and over again during the whole time we were in opposition, and made abundantly plain in his election speeches and address at the last election, so far from breaking pledges, if we did not proceed with this proposal at the present time we should indeed be breaking a pledge.

Mr. VARLEY: I intervene only in order to correct an impression which, I feel, was created when this matter was under discussion a week ago. I am not going to argue the merits of Protection or Free Trade, but simply to say that there seemed to be, when the Vote was taken a week ago, an idea that there was an overwhelming desire in the City and County of Nottingham for some form of Protection for the lace trade. I want to say that that is very far from being the truth, and that when the question was one of Protection versus Free Trade, in 1923, the Division of East Nottingham sent a Free Trader to this House, and the present hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Brocklebank) knows that, but for the intervention of a Communist, he would not now be here to voice the demands of a considerable minority for Protection in this trade. The same remark applies with regard to the Central Division. At the 1923 election, when there was a clear-cut issue, the electorate of the Central Division sent a Free Trader to this House. With regard to the county, I understand that I had the dubious distinction, from their point of view, of being the only representative from the City and County of Nottingham who did
not support the Measure now before the House. I contend that, in so doing, I was following what would be the wish of by far the largest majority in the constituency.
I wonder if those gentlemen who put the claims of the trade have ever heard of the fact that there are in the City of Nottingham at least 6,000 colliers? It is fair to assume that these, with their dependents, form a larger part of the population of Nottingham than do the lace workers at this time of day, and, if that is not true, there are in the immediate vicinity 50,000 people engaged in the coal trade, whose very livelihood is dependent on the maintenance of the largest volume of all forms of export trade which they can possibly get. That is illustrated by the fact that in the Humber ports, in 1924, there was a drop of 46 per cent. as compared with the export of coal in 1913, and in the Humber ports Nottingham coal is from time to time exported. I want to assure the hon. Members from the City and County of Nottingham that they cannot, with any degree of certainty, say that when they are representing the views of the Nottingham lace trade they are by any means representing the views of the majority of their constituents. Nottingham is not only in coal, but in bicycles, in hosiery, in a hundred and one things. It is becoming more and more dependent on export trade, and I consider that they are doing a very great disservice indeed in taking the action they are now taking. I wanted just to put in this word of protest, that there may be in the Committee a correct idea of the fact that the City and County of Nottingham are no more Protectionist now than they were at the 1923 election, when they gave a very definite refusal to those who espoused Protection.

Mr. SPENCER: I have listened to a very interesting speech by my colleague, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley). We are both associated with the same miners' association, and I venture to make this remark to him, and to any other hon. Member, that if foreign coal was coming into this country as lace is coming into this country, he would be standing up in this House for Protection. The real test with regard to these things is: How far is it hitting you individually? So far as the mining element are concerned, they are certainly not hit by the
lace coming in, and I have not the least doubt that if a plebiscite were taken upon the broad issue of Free Trade, especially when the question of foodstuffs is involved, the mining element would immediately vote for Free Trade, but it is very questionable whether the miners of this country, if they were given an opportunity of voting upon each individual trade, would give an unqualified assent to Free Trade in every individual case. So far as the lace trade is concerned, I have listened with some degree of amazement, both to Members on my side and to Members below the Gangway. As far as I can read this Report, the summary, which has never been touched upon, I believe, while this Debate has been proceeding, of the 1923 Report, which is given in this Report, is conclusive so far as the representatives of the Committee at that time were concerned; and, after giving a summary of their own Report, in which they definitely say that the lace trade is being hit by foreign competition, they wind up by saying:
We do not find that the conditions have substantially altered.
I have said before that this is undoubtedly one of the most peculiar Reports ever issued to this House, because it is possible for Members on either side of the House, to whichever school of thought they belong, to make out a case based upon this Report. I admit that very frankly, but, reading through it very carefully, and basing my remarks, not upon this Report alone, but upon the summary of the 1923 Report, I think it can be stated that the members of the Committee were of opinion that the lace trade was being hit by foreign competition, and foreign competition was being strengthened by reason of the fact of the adverse exchanges, so far as this country was concerned.
We must admit one or two things. In the first place, we have to admit that there has been a general decline in the world trade, associated with intensified competition, and the competition has intensified in this country, so far as the lace trade is concerned, by reason of the fact that undoubtedly—and this cannot be denied—the workers in France and Belgium are getting a less wage than the workers in this country are getting. If I am told, as a labourer, as a man standing for Labour, that under no con-
ditions am I to build up a wall of Protection against sweated labour of any kind, I am not going to subscribe to such a doctrine. I do not say this is the best course universally to adopt, but I am certain of this, that there are Members associated with me upon these benches who would say to the country which was sending manufactured goods into this country, "Unless those goods are manufactured under conditions approximating to the conditions, and paid for by wages approximating to the wages, which prevail in this country, we will not merely put a tariff against them, but we will prohibit them coming in until you give your workmen conditions equal to those obtaining here." That is what a good many of us on these benches are beginning to feel. What other Hon. Members do does not affect me. I am stating, so far as I am concerned, what my position is, and what is the position, the ever-growing position, of a good many Labour men upon these benches, that we will not have any kind of goods coming in made under conditions that are going to sweep away the workers of this country.
When we were discussing this question the other night someone intervened and said—I think it was the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) who sits below me—that we were going to make it harder for the workpeople to buy curtains for lace and things of that character. Let me say to her, and to those who are sitting here on these benches, that if the lace trade declines during the next five years as it has declined in the last two years there will be no lace trade left in the country. There were 27,000 lace hands in 1921–22. There are 20,000 to-day. If it goes on at that rate in less than five years we will have no lace trade. One by one the factories are shutting down. Men and women associated with the lace trade have been turned upon the streets. If we have no remedy whatever in circumstances of this character, then it is going to be a very bad day indeed for the workers of the country. It would mean eventually when you have shut down the lace trade of this country, as must inevitably happen at the present rate, if it is subject to unfair competition by reason of cheap labour in other countries that as soon as the other countries have killed the trade here, and we want to buy lace for curtains, or
for any other object, then we shall have to go to their market, and pay, if we needed the article, the really prohibitive prices which they would impose upon us. Instead of us having reasonable competition—which we would all like to see—instead of the goods coming in as they should from where there is something like equal conditions, we should find that when the foreigner could impose upon us his financial point of view he would have no qualms of conscience in doing so; of imposing that burden upon us. I have been constrained, as I said on the first occasion that I made a speech upon this subject, to the view I hold because I am immediately associated with people, living around my very house, who have done no work, in some instances, for two or three years, and so far as they can see there is no hope for them. I am associating with gentlemen in Nottingham, who five or six years ago had a fair competence, and were, in a business sense, in something like a reasonable flourishing condition; to-day little stands between them and bankruptcy. The only thing that stands between them and bankruptcy, in some instances at all events, is the fact that they have been good customers to the banks, and the banks are holding out so long as they possibly can to keep their businesses going. If the banks stopped all credit to-morrow it would be a very bad thing indeed for many in the lace trade in Nottingham. I am not ashamed, under these circumstances, to say that If the vote is taken now, or at any time, I will give my vote under these circumstances to try to preserve the lace trade in the County of Nottingham, both for the masters and the men.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Spencer) has made a very illuminating speech, which has, I feel sure, created a great deal of sympathy among the out-and-out Protectionists here. He began his speech with the proposition that the special case of the Nottingham lace trade was one which, he thought, made out a case for Protection. He did not, however, get very far before it appeared the real reason why the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Nottingham lace trade should get Protection is a reason which can be put forward by Protectionists, with great sincerity, for Protection
generally. There was nothing whatever in the general proposition which the hon. Gentleman put forward—of course, he was quite within his rights in doing so— which was purely limited to the Nottingham lace trade, though he was speaking, first of all, and found it possible to adopt Protectionist views in regard to a local industry, with some of the local circumstances of which he, very naturally, had special acquaintance. I make no complaint of that, because, of course, the Members of the Labour party are perfectly entitled to proclaim themselves Protectionists. Whether such proclamations are received with quite the same enthusiasm by all their leaders as by the Protectionists on the opposite side of the House, I do not know. At any rate, no Member of the Labour party at the last election made a pledge that if elected he would not make a speech and do his best to fasten a piece of Protection on the country. So the hon. Gentleman is entirely within his rights.
The position, however, of the people on the Government Benches is quite different. They have undertaken not to take a particular course. Nothing was more striking in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade than this: he spent a certain portion of his time in dealing with what I might perhaps call some of the technical points which have been raised, and which it was quite proper for him to deal with. He spent another portion of his time in advancing a series of stock Protectionist arguments—every stock Protectionist argument which everybody has heard at the street corners any time during the last 20 years. But one part of his speech was singularly brief and singularly wanting, and that was the part of the speech in which he professed to deal with the perfectly definite criticism not of Protection, or of Free Trade, not of the vote of the House of Commons, but the action of the Government, of which he is the spokesman, in venturing, upon the present material of the Committee's Report to recommend this particular duty to the House of Commons. I say that the Government is bound to do no such thing, and that they do not get out of their pledge by stirring up the enthusiasm of their Protectionist followers or awaking an echo in the breast of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Broxstowe. They made a promise,
and in circumstances in which it is most important that they should keep it. I remember very well during the General Election that I had the misfortune to engage in a controversy with Lord Derby, who is well known to be used on suitable occasions as a decoy duck in Lancashire as a Conservative Free Trader; and he never fails to perform his part. I ventured to say, and I have no reason to be ashamed of it, that I was opposed to Protection, and I added I was opposed to it in whatever disguise it was presented. Lord Derby exhibited quite an unusual asperity in dressing me down, and in saying that this was a reflection—I forget whether it was upon himself or the Prime Minister—but it was something he very greatly resented. I said it then, and I repeat it now. In the meantime something has happened which we said would happen. The truth of the matter is that in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and many other parts of the country by the support of Lord Derby and by the calculated vagueness of the declaration of the Prime Minister, the Unionist and Conservative party secured a majority, not indeed a majority of the votes cast at the election, but a great majority of this House. The Prime Minister himself has admitted here very frankly and candidly that he knows quite well that included in that majority is very likely a million of votes of people who call themselves Liberals. How did they get the majority? It may seem very amusing to some hon. Members, but where they got it so far as the Free Traders were concerned was by making a declaration which, in my submission, has been flagrantly broken by the Government in bringing the present proposal before the House of Commons.
It is for the House of Commons, said the President of the Board of Trade, to decide, to vote. It is always for the House of Commons to decide, and for the House to vote. But the pledge which the Prime Minister gave was not a pledge as to how the House would vote; it was a pledge of what the Government would propose, and of assurances really, though vague in terms, quite easy to be understood. Let me just remind the Committee what it really amounts to. What is the theory which the President of the Board of Trade put forward so amiably this afternoon? That it really does not
matter what the Committee found; that any conditions will do that the Government may think fit, for they are perfectly free to make this proposal and to leave the majority of the House of Commons to do what they think right. May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what he said in the Debate on the 16th February of this year, a Debate in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and I took part. In that Debate my right hon. Friend said that they might very well find that the Committees proposed would conceive themselves able to prove all that the Government said was necessary.
What was the reply of the President of the Board of Trade?
I know the case is thrown out that any industry, or most industries, might be able to say that in some countries the wages paid in the corresponding industry are lower than the wages paid in this country. But that is not all that has got to be proved. Before the industry can obtain an inquiry into it, it has got to show, not only that in some countries wages are lower, but that the competition is exceptional and the rate of imports abnormal. Therefore, it is idle to take one particular item in these conditions which have to be fulfilled, and to say that any industry could fulfil them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1925; cols. 809–10, Vol. 180.]
6.0 P.M.
Would anybody really believe that the speech we heard this afternoon came from the same right hon. Gentleman who made the speech that I have quoted? Having committed yourselves by undertaking to secure votes by these representations, you are at liberty, of course, to propose anything you like; to change your mind as often as you please! To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he has not changed his mind on the subject. He has always been a straightforward Protectionist, and that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves him to do his job, though this matter happens to be in Committee of Finance Bill. Why the President of the Board of Trade should tell us that this procedure is constitutional and in accordance with custom I cannot conceive. When in the history of Parliament, or in the lifetime of any Member of Parliament, has there ever been a new Clause in Committee of the Finance Bill proposed, defended, supported, and explained from beginning to end without having the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secre-
tary in person on the Front Bench opposite? It is, of course, perfectly abnormal from a constitutional point of view. But the more immediate point is this: Those very conditions which the President of the Board of Trade, with the Prime Minister, declared to be absolutely essential before the procedure could be adopted are now being ostentatiously thrown over. Take the four main conditions—the Leader of the Opposition interposed to refer to one of them just now—laid down in the White Paper which were prescribed for this Committee, and in respect of each of which the Committee was required to ask itself the question and answer it on the evidence. There was first, the question, "Is the trade in question an important trade?" Secondly, there was the question, "Are the imports abnormal?"—the very thing the President of the Board of Trade referred to in his speech just now.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how, when an industry is as stagnant as the lace trade is and has been for the last two years, any imports into this country can be abnormal?

Sir J. SIMON: That seems a very good reason for revising the terms for the Committee, but not a good reason for throwing over the declaration made by the President of the Board of Trade, a declaration that the imports had to be unprecedented before this remedy could be applied. I sympathise with the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). There is not a man who stands higher in the respect of us all, but he must see that we have some grounds for criticism if the conditions laid down in a White Paper and in speeches of the Government were in certain defined terms, and it can be shown that those defined terms are not satisfied. I was saying that there were four conditions. The first that the trade should be important, and the second that the imports must be abnormal, whatever that may mean. The third was that the foreign article was being sold at such prices as seriously undercut similar goods produced in the United Kingdom; and the fourth was that employment in this country should be seriously affected
thereby; not, I may point out, that there should be unemployment in the trade, for, unfortunately, there is unemployment in a good many trades, and there happens to be unemployment in the corresponding trade abroad, as the Committee point out, but that you should have it established that there is unemployment due to the fact that this country is flooded with similar goods sold at a seriously cheaper price.
Those were the four main conditions. What does this Committee, the members of which were selected by the Board of Trade—the President of the Board of Trade can select whom he wishes—say in answering the four questions? They say, first, that the industry might be regarded as important. Be it so. There is no question at all of its importance to people who hope to live by it, and I do not wish to speak slightingly of the industry. What do they say of the other three conditions—which are not alternatives but are cumulative—which the White Paper and the President of the Board of Trade insisted must be fulfilled before the Government would be entitled to take action and ask the House of Commons to confirm it? They say, as regards the second condition, after giving a series of figures about it, that they cannot answer it except in the negative. They say, as regards the third condition, that they did not attempt to answer it, amongst other things because in any case it depends upon the answer to the second. And they do not answer the fourth question either.
What is the good of coming here now and making appeals which are composed partly of general Protectionist cliches and partly of references to the undoubtedly serious condition of many people in this unhappily decaying industry, when the real point is, What right has the Government, within six months of the General Election, to betray a great body of opinion in this country which trusted the Prime Minister's word? I must confess I am getting a little tired of this flying to the point of honour. The last time a Conservative Government got themselves involved in this kind of thing, they had a very ingenious leader, the then Mr. Arthur Balfour, and he again and again fobbed off the challenge of the Free Traders by flying to the point of honour. There are many honourable
people in the world, but we have to test these things for ourselves, and it is perfectly plain, if a man is prepared to use unbiassed judgment on the language that has been employed, that nobody can defend what the Government are attempting to do to-day by saying it comes within the language which was used. Last Saturday I went to see a Greek play, the famous play of Agamemnon, and I may recall, though not in any ancient tongue, the observation that is made by the villainess immediately after she has committed the crime. Clytemnestra welcomes her husband home with soft words until she has the opportunity of dealing a mortal blow, and when she has dealt it she goes to the front of the stage and says, as translated:
Though much was said before to suit the time, I shall not blush to say the opposite.
My real complaint of the matter, indeed it is the naked truth—I do not mind in this weather if truth be naked—is that the Government are not merely naked in this matter but utterly unashamed, in breaking every assurance offered to the electors.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: There are one or two small points which ought to be put forward for the consideration of the Committee and which, so far as I am aware, have not been brought to its attention. In the first place, I have not heard any speaker in this Debate, or the one that preceded it, who really combated the allegation of those who defend Protection in this House, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade himself, that the home market must be secured in order that, by a reduction of standing charges, we may compete profitably and efficiently with firms abroad. To anyone engaged in meeting foreign competition, as I am myself, the answer to that is perfectly obvious, though it is, perhaps, not so obvious to some Members here. It is this. I do not for a moment think that the lacemakers' unions of Nottingham, which are efficiently managed, are going to allow that duty of 33⅓ per cent, to be imposed without putting forward a demand for increased wages. From the point of view of the trade unions, there is no earthly reason why the profits of lacemakers in Notting-
ham should be increased by means of this duty; and if, as a result the lace trade is to be restored to a greater state of prosperity, certainly, as trade union officials, it will be their bounden duty to see that their own men get as much out of that as they possibly can. I suggest that if we have this 33⅓ per cent, duty put on in order to restore the prosperity of the trade, the first result will be a demand, which can hardly be refused, for a rise in wages. The lacemakers find enough difficulty in competing with foreign makers as it is, and I think with higher wages it will be found even more difficult. Any reduction in overhead charges due to the securing of the home market—or the securing of the "remnants of the home markets," as is the case in this instance—will be completely counter-balanced by the increased cost of production through increased wages.
The second point I wish to put forward is that I do not think that during this Debate there has been any real inquiry into the whole basis of this so-called Safeguarding of Industries. Most important words have been bandied about from side to side without any consideration as to what they really indicate. We are told there is unfair competition from abroad. When we come to analyse the meaning of "unfair competition," I think we shall find we shall have to define it—and I am afraid Protectionists will have to agree to this, because it is the sense in which they use it—that unfair competition is any competition which succeeds in its object. If those low and base people living abroad are content to work for lower wages and to produce cheaper and better goods than our people do, then, we are told, that competition is "unfair." Why should we stop at unfair foreign competition from abroad? Why not deal with unfair competition at home? In my own particular branch of industry, I am, as a matter of fact, doing better, I believe, than my competitors. Why? Simply because those low, base blacklegs I employ happen to be turning out more than the men employed by my competitors. There we have a perfect case of unfair competition, and, naturally, if we admit, as all Protectionists wish us to admit, that unfair competition is the competition of people more efficient than ourselves, then I suggest to the President of the Board of
Trade that the Government had better deal with unfair competition at home as well as abroad.
That is not the main trouble that has arisen through the mis-use of words. The word "efficient" also has a great bearing upon the whole of this discussion. We are told that any industry which is to be safeguarded must prove, first of all, that it is efficiently conducted. In judging the meaning of the word efficient, let us examine what standards we have available. What criterion is there by which we may say whether a particular industry is efficient or not? If we give serious consideration to that matter, we are bound to agree that the only criterion of whether an industry is efficient or not is whether it beats its competitors or not. I have given long and earnest thought to this subject, and I cannot find that there is any method of judging efficiency or otherwise in competitive business other than by the results obtained. For instance, if my competitors seriously damage my business and get my trade I am obliged to admit that they are more efficient than I am; and if, on the contrary, I can beat my competitors, I think I may claim that I am more efficient than they. I should be very glad if the President of the Board of Trade, or anyone else in the Protectionist party, would inform us whether there is any other method of judging the meaning of the word "efficiency," except the criterion of success or failure in meeting competition. Those are the two main points I wish to bring before the Committee—a consideration of whether it is not very unwise to use words in the vague way they are being used, to talk about "unfair" competition when we mean competition which succeeds where we fail, and to talk about an industry being "efficient" when it wants protection. To put the whole thing into a nutshell, an industry is efficient if it does not want Protection, and it is inefficient if it does.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson), the problem is not so simple as that, because, unquestionably, the manufacturer of lace in this country is suffering from grossly unfair competition. It is no exaggeration to say that the Calais maker of lace is importing goods into this country with a bonus from the depreciated French exchange of some-
thing like 40 per cent. If the manufacturers of machinery abroad were importing into the home market machines with a bonus of about 40 per cent., I do not know whether my hon. Friend would call it fair competition or unfair competition.

Mr. HOPKINSON: As the noble Lord has appealed to me, may I say that the Germans are doing it in my particular branch of industry, but, being efficient, I can beat them on price and quality?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Yes, but the German currency is not depreciated. If the hon. Member will look at the evidence submitted in this last inquiry into the lace trade he will find a calculation that at the end of 1924, when the French franc was somewhere about 87, prices of articles had remained about 57. If wages followed the course of retail prices that gave the French manufacturer a bonus at that time of about 30 per cent. That has now fallen to over 100, and it is no exaggeration to say that the French manufacturer is receiving a bonus on his wages of something like 40 per cent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) complained that the Government had betrayed their election pledges, and he pointed to the fact that there is no great and abnormal importation of lace into this country. At the same time, if my right hon. and learned Friend were to take a sample of good up-to-date Nottingham lace and try to sell it in this country he would find that the merchants would tell him that they could purchase lace abroad 40 per cent. cheaper.
That is grossly unfair competition, and it is due to the depreciated character of the French exchange. The Government, by their proposals, may not have satisfied everybody, but I do think that they have imported a little human sympathy and common-sense into our economic system. I deny that it is to the advantage of the common weal of this country to allow any trade to die, and I fail to see that it is to the advantage of the nation to allow a once flourishing industry to die and linger away, not through any fault of its own, but through artificial and unfair competition owing to a depreciated exchange. To say that we must do nothing, and rely upon the strict tenets of Free Trade is not to my mind Free Trade at all, but simply erecting a kind
of Juggernaut which is crushing the life out of many thousands of deserving workmen.

Mr. MACKINDER: It would be a very interesting Debate if we were to enter into a discussion as to how far this country, in maintaining the value of the £, has entered into the possibilities of our export trade. It has been a very consistent policy in this country to increase the volume of our trade, and where it has been the policy to keep the currency at a deflated point it has a distinct bearing on this subject. Like many other hon. Members at the last election, I was very busy trying to explain to the electors that there was no difference between the safeguarding of industries and Tariff Reform. We were also very busy explaining that there was no difference, while hon. Members of the party opposite were busy explaining that there was a fundamental difference in this respect. Of course, there is a difference. One is doing the thing piecemeal, and the other is a big thing which has to be done all at once. If the Government are honest in their intentions, and if we are assured that they do not intend to introduce general tariff methods in this country, I am compelled to come to the opinion that if this is going to be the method as advocated by the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson), who told us that this Government would continue in office until 1929. When that year comes along there will not be many industries in this country which are not protected.
It appears to me that one could very well follow the principles set forth in a book which I read some time ago entitled "Will it work?" That is the real test of any subject which ought to be considered in this House. I want to suggest to the party opposite that they should make a challenge to this House. They say, "We believe that the safeguarding of industries is a good thing for industry. Let us have a tariff test." This is the first proposal of an industry to be safeguarded under the new principle, and let the Government put it into operation for one year, and leave every other industry alone, and then come to the House of Commons and prove whether or not this is a fair test. We have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that a decided difference will be found in the lace industry as a result of these proposals.
It has been pointed out scores of times that fashion very often determines the success of an industry, and we have had more experience in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent of fashions than any other industry. I remember the time when the people wanted some material that would rustle and then the fashion changed and something was wanted that would hang smooth from the hips, and we produced something which supplied that necessity of fashion. From time to time and almost from year to year the West Riding industry has not depended upon safeguarding from outside, but upon finding something which would catch the public eye. I want to suggest, very frankly, that there is not an industry in this country which could not prove up to the hilt to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Government that their industry needed safeguarding.
Not long ago the managing director of a great firm in the West Riding headed a party of Bradford business men who formed a deputation to the President of the Board of Trade, and they established definitely and beyond any doubt that the trade of the West Riding had gone to the dogs. They showed that French serges and other materials were being imported at 6s. a yard, and they could not produce them under 9s. a yard, and they asserted that unless we were safeguarded in our textile trade there would be no more work and everybody would be out of work. That very afternoon, whilst this deputation were urging their case in this way, the chairman of the board of directors of one of those large firms was presiding over a shareholders' meeting, and he congratulated them upon having had the best year they had ever experienced in the history of their trade That is what happened only two years ago in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Really, these proposals are carrying the thing a little bit too far. Any industry can prove a case of this sort, and, if only the lace industry would get down to facts and find out how they could produce fashions to help their industry, that is certainly the line on which they ought to proceed. Everybody knows that the lace industry does not really expect to get back to the position they were in a few years ago, even by adopting this principle of the safeguarding of indus-
tries. Such proposals may stave off the evil time and make goods a little more expensive for the people and produce a little more profit, and they may say that they have proved their case, but I want to suggest that the only method by which any industry can keep its end up is by providing exactly the goods which the public need. If there be a need for those goods the public will buy them. Everybody who knows anything about domestic life knows that a few years ago our wives and daughters were dressed up in garments on which there was a lot of lace, but since that time artificial silk goods have been largely produced in Leeds and Macclesfield; in fact, artificial silk has been woven by the mile in those places.
I want to suggest that a very important feature of any industry is to provide something that the people can buy, and once you have created a public demand for an article there will be very little need for any safeguarding of that particular industry. The artificial methods being adopted by the Government are bad for the morale of the industry itself. The child which is always being petted and is kept wrapped up in cotton wool is always catching cold, and any industry which is kept up by artificial methods will only ask for more and more help and will finally die of a slow disease. Fashions have changed. If you had gone into the houses of the average artisan 10 or 12 years ago you would have found lace curtains everywhere, and 95 per cent. of them would have got such curtains in their houses. Now this will all be changed and it is bound to have an effect in diminishing the trade in this particular industry.
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that we ought to make a test for about a year's time. Then, if the party opposite decide that it has been successful, it might be continued for two or three years. The only method of proving whether it will be useful or not is to apply the test, "Will it work?" If the textile industry of the West Riding of Yorkshire makes an application, I am satisfied that they can make out a case why they should be safeguarded. I know they have old machinery. At one time we could not make a single thread of warp yarn, and we had to size it, but the French had
tried combing processes which are too technical to understand, and they are now able to do this. By our new machinery we can make a light cloth and make it strong, but, although these manufacturers did not get what they wanted in the way of safeguarding of their industries, they managed to get along. I admit, however, that they are not too well off at the present time. We can make as good a cloth as anybody in the world in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I think the Nottingham people can make as good lace as anybody in the world. They have to produce an article which will supply the requirements of the public, and if they do this then neither French nor Swiss goods will prevent the British people buying those articles.

Sir H. CROFT: Surely, the last speaker has missed the whole point of this Debate. He has announced that there is greater suffering in the industries in our country than ever there was before, but, surely, if we can preserve one industry from falling into that condition, it is our duty to do so. After all, there are no other remedies put forward. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder), with all the wisdom of a West Riding expert, has been lecturing the Nottingham lace manufacturers, but, surely, they know their job as well as the people of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and as well as an industry which has been turning its attention to such questions as fashions. The speech of the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), surely, shows that the matter has no connection with change of fashion. Even if you could import archangels in the lace trade and teach them their business, you could not get over the difference of the exchange.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made a speech of great significance. He is the honest Free Trader, as opposed to the careful Free Trader, and he let the cat out of the bag. His main inspiration is to see cheap labour in this country, and he stated that as clearly as it could possibly be stated, with the quiet cheers of the Liberal party behind him. I think many of us will absolutely dissociate ourselves from that view. After all, this trade which we are now considering is one of many. If we could raise the wages of the people of this country by £10 per annum, I believe
I am right in saying that that would mean £500,000,000 more circulating among the people of this country, and if wages could be raised by £20 per annum it would mean £1,000,000,000 more. That is the secret which the United States of America have discovered, while we always cling to the laissez faire idea of sweating our people in order to produce a cheap article. We shall never recover until we look at the matter from a more human point of view.
I hope there will not be any more suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has in this matter broken his pledge. I think that even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) will. do me the credit of agreeing that I am fairly consistent upon this question. I attended the meeting when the present Prime Minister was again elected Leader of the Conservative party, and he made a speech then, which was published in the Press, in which he definitely laid down that, although we had abandoned a general tariff—the meaning of which, I am afraid, is not well understood by quite a large number of people in this country at the present time—he said that, although we had abandoned that as our policy, he intended then, and he has never ceased to reiterate it, and it was a pledge to the country, that we should safeguard those industries which were in real peril and approaching disaster. From that day to this my right hon. Friend has never varied, and I think it is a little unworthy that anyone should get up and say that the Prime Minister has broken his' pledge. To do so would be absolutely false to his party, and I, for one, would never have assented to his re-election as Leader of the party if he had not made it absolutely plain on that occasion that he intended to carry out that policy.

Captain BENN: May I ask the hon. Baronet a question? Is there anything, in his judgment, in the Prime Minister's utterance at that meeting, which would prevent him from imposing a duty to protect every industry, or most of the industries, in the country?

Sir H. CROFT: I never understood from the Prime Minister that there was any industry, if the employers and employed in it could prove, on both sides, as is happening in this case, that it is vital
to their existence, that would not come within this pledge. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) used what I might describe as rather a bitter phrase. He talked about the servile hordes of the party behind my right hon. Friend. At any rate, I think we can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley that the hordes behind him are not quite so servile. Already we have seen that there is a considerable section of that party—one-fifth—who realise that the whole future of this country depends on the development of Empire trade and the maintenance of home trade, and I can only say that, if this is to be a test in the days to come, I believe the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will never regret the fact that, when you had both sections in industry, employers and employed, coming to the Government of this country and asking them to fulfil their just duty of seeing that there was a possibility of employment for their people, the Government did not hesitate, in spite of any criticism, to put that provision into their Finance Bill and carry it.

Major OWEN: I only intervene in the Debate because there are certain points which I have not heard put so far. Two or three years ago, this question of bringing the lace industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act was a very important question in the particular area where the lase is actually made I refer to such places as Long Eaton, Sandiacre and other places in the neighbourhood of the City of Nottingham. I had reason to look into the position of the trade at that time, as I happened to stand for that constituency as a Liberal at the General Election of 1922, and a very large number of the electors in the constituency were engaged in the actual making of the lace. It seems to me rather strange that so much emphasis should have been placed upon Nottingham lace, because, if I remember correctly, the greater part of the. lace is made, not in Nottingham, but in places like Long Eaton, Sandiacre, Sawley and various other places in that neighbourhood.
For a considerable period the industry had been in a state of paralysis. Factories which I myself visited had been closed down, and no work was being done, or had been done, for months. I saw a
beautiful machine lying idle; I saw a caretaker looking after, perhaps, 18 or 20 machines; but the thing that struck me more particularly in that area was the absolute inanition of the lacemakers themselves. They seemed to have no idea at all how to get over the difficulty in which they were placed at that time. I remember asking a good many of them, "What does it cost you to produce this lace?"—and the answer I got, after making very careful inquiries, was that they could produce the lace at 1½d. a yard, which meant for them a profit of 2½ per cent. I naturally made inquiries then as to the price at which this lace was sold, and I found that the price to the retailer ranged from 8d. to 10d.
Naturally, I began to ask, "Where is the difference?" The lace manufacturer was content to make that lace for 1½d. a yard, which showed him a profit of 2½ per cent., but when it came into the hands of the public it cost 8d. to 10d. Where was the profit? Where was the difference? Where did it go? The trade themselves agreed that they did not put it on. They sold the lace to the Nottingham people, who bleached and dyed it. The great cost in the manufacture of lace is in the actual making of it. The cost of bleaching and dyeing is comparatively insignificant. When they asked me, "Are you prepared to support our application to place our industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?" my answer was, "No; put your own trade in order first. You can compete with France, you can compete with Switzerland, provided you can show me that there is efficiency between the production of the lace at 1½d. a yard and its sale at 8d. to 10d."

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the hon. and gallant Member ever inquired what it costs to bleach and finish lace?

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Or the wages of the scallopers?

Major OWEN: I am taking the statement of the manufacturers themselves at Long Eaton and Sandiacre, and they assured me definitely. I appeared before the lace manufacturers themselves at Long Eaton, and that was my reply to them at the time—that in my opinion, in the best interests of the trade, they them-
selves should look into it and try to make it more efficient. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question!"] I have answered the question. The great cost in the production of lace—I am taking the evidence of the manufacturers themselves, and they did not deny it at the time when I put the point to them— the great cost in the production of the lace was in the making of it. They had to buy the cotton— [An HON. MEMBER: "Has the hon. Member ever asked the bleachers how much it cost them to bleach the lace?"] The bleachers were represented at that meeting. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the cost?"] The bleachers were represented at that meeting. I am very glad that some facts at last have penetrated even the intelligence of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are burking the issue!"] I am not. If hon. Members on the other side can refute the facts which I have put forward, they are at liberty to do so. A great point has been made in regard to the difference in the exchanges, and that the manufacturer in Nottingham and the neighbourhood is penalised owing to the fact that the French producer, on account of the depreciated exchange, can sell the article here much cheaper. But those who make that point forget one thing. France does not produce the raw material, nor does Switzerland, and, therefore, if they have to purchase the raw material from outside, then, owing to their depreciated exchange, they have to pay considerably more for that raw material than our manufacturers here have to pay.
I am more convinced to-day even than I was then that the real cause of the difficulty of this trade, as of so many other trades in this country, is the fact that they will not put their own house in order, and, so long as they continue to look to a Conservative Government to spoon-feed them with the milk of Protection, they will continue to fold their arms and do nothing, as has been the case to a very great extent in the area of which I am speaking. Therefore, I very strongly oppose the putting of this industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which, after all, is merely a measure of Protection to subsidise a trade which has proved itself incapable of meeting competition with other countries. Not very
long since, a machine invented by an Englishman for the manufacture of lace was offered to every manufacturer in that area, and a friend of mine, the biggest lace buyer in the country, offered to take the whole of the production of that machine; but they turned it down. That machine was adopted in France and in Switzerland, and the very lace produced by that machine is the lace which cuts out the lace produced in Nottingham and that area to-day. That is another fact which hon. Members on the other side might well consider and think over.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: It is with hesitation that I intervene in this Debate. But I should like to say a word about the point of view of outsiders on this very important question. It is the point of view of one who has never been able to look upon the Free Trade versus Protection controversy from what I should call the purely theological standpoint, but reviews each case for Free Trade or Protection as it comes up, in the light of general principles and of actual facts. Reviewing this Clause in that light, I think I may say it is one of the very worst cases for Protection I have ever heard put forward. It appears to me that if you asked the right hon. Gentleman to put the case for Protection as regards any national industry in an attractive light, he would find it very much easier to do so were he to argue for Protection in favour of one of our great national industries. I should not support him, but I should find the case very much easier to understand because it is an industry that you cannot displace. You cannot carry on the business of being Great Britain unless you have a great iron and steel trade, and a great cotton trade. If they go down there is little left. If, therefore, by any accidental circumstance, one of those great industries is in danger, certainly no possible means of securing its prosperity must be lightly disregarded. Here you have a different case. You have a small industry—a decaying industry.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Working men have to live.

Mr. YOUNG: That is a point I am coming to, if the Noble Lord will restrain his impatience. You have a very small
industry and a decaying industry. It is in the case of such an industry that I think the case for Protection becomes the worst, because you can displace the capital and the labour which is embarked in it. One more concession I will make to supporters of this principle. If even a small industry is decaying through any preventable circumstances there may be a case for at any rate considering measures for its temporary assistance. But, as far as I can understand on a careful perusal, in the case put forward on behalf of this industry by the Committee the decay is neither accidental nor temporary. It is due to very deep seated causes. Reading between the lines, as we are entitled to do in any report of the sort, I cannot but help coming to the conclusion that the lace industry is decaying because the invention and the ingenuity of the Briton does not seem to be able to work it with success. He is beaten in these qualities by his competitors abroad, and that is a difficulty which you can cure by no tariff.
I come now to the point eloquently taken by the Noble Lord opposite. I want to put it in this light. No man, of course, can stand up here and talk lightly, or from the point of view of mere abstract economic principle, about the livelihood of about 20,000 men and women. It is a most serious question. There is only one more serious question, and that is the livelihood of the 1,250,000 unemployed. The two questions are linked very closely in this way. Why have we the general mass of unemployed? Because we are not getting equal with our foreign competitors in the great severity of competition that has followed the War. To get equal with them, we must screw up in every particular the efficiency of the race. We must screw up the efficiency of the use of every pound of capital and every ounce of brain. If you allow that efficiency to decline out of consideration for a small minority, you are doing a very great wrong to the big majority of the unemployed.
I am really brought to my feet by a reference to the United States made by the hon. Baronet who spoke from the Front Bench opposite. If there is one lesson that we learn from studying trade and industrial conditions in the United States it is this. They flourish because of their extraordinary agility, promptitude and ingenuity in turning from one
trade to another when the old trade is found to be unprofitable. Let me quote a single instance. We have all heard—fortunately as yet no more than heard—of prohibition. When prohibition came into force in the United States, at a blow an immense amount of invested capital, a vast supply of machinery and a great value in buildings was apparently put out of profit-earning capacity. There was hardly a word of complaint, there was hardly a ripple of disturbance in the industrial centres of the States, and in the course of a few months the whole of the capital, the whole of the

labour and the whole of the plant was turned over successfully to mating fresh products, and was put upon a profit-earning basis in a new sphere. That is the moral we have to learn. That is the lesson which it is essential and vital for us to learn—fluidity and agility in our industrial sphere—and it is that lesson which such a proposal as this is doing its best to prevent the country from learning.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 148.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[6.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Haslam, Henry C.


Albery, Irving James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hayday, Arthur


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crook, C. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Balniel, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hilton, Cecil


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Holland, Sir Arthur


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bennett, A. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Dentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Berry, Sir George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitch'n)


Betterton, Henry B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elveden, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jacob, A. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fielden, E. B.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Finburgh, S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fleming, D. P.
Lamb, J. Q.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bullock, Captain M.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Burman, J. B
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Loder, J. de V.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Looker, Herbert William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lougher, L.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gates, Percy
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cassels, J. D.
Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gee, Captain R.
Lumley, L. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grace, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Chapman, Sir S.
Grant, J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grotrian, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, F. B.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cooper, A. Duff
Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cope, Major William
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moles, Thomas


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Templeton, W. P.


Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Rice, Sir Frederick
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Murchison, C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Rye, F. G.
Waddington, R.


Neville, R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sandon, Lord
Watts, Dr. T.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Skelton, A. N.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wolmer, Viscount


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Womersley, W. J.


Preston, William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Storry, Deans, R.



Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Remnant, Sir James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duckworth, John
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


England, Colonel A.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)
Riley, Ben



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Entertainments Duty.)

"As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, Entertainments. Duty within the meaning of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, amended by any subsequent enactment, shall cease to be chargeable."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this new Clause with the knowledge that I shall receive a very considerable measure of support from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in his pre-occupation with other aspects of his Budget, overlooked the Entertainments Duty. What I propose to do is to draw his attention to something which, I feel quite sure, he will agree with us, ought to be done, and that is to abolish the duty. The right hon. Gentleman himself, so recently as last November, expressed the view that I am going to express now. He said:
I am strongly in favour of the abolition of this tax and think it has a very high claim on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, when he made that statement, did not conceive himself in the position that he now occupies, but I have no doubt that that represents his considered view on this question, and I am hoping he will agree with what I have to say about it. The Entertainments Duty was a War tax, and, like most War taxes, was a bad tax. I think I am right in saying that no Chancellor of the Exchequer since its imposition has supported this duty. It was clearly understood by War-time Chancellors of the Exchequer that when the War came to an end, or at least within a reasonable period after the War—I believe two years—the Entertainments Duty should be abolished, and my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his remissions last year, said he had never liked the tax and that what he did last year was to be taken merely as an instalment, and an earnest of his intention to abolish the tax altogether. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in words which cannot bear two meanings, has expressed himself as being strongly in favour of its total abolition. I venture to say that this duty is
as stupid and as absurd as the old so-called taxes on knowledge. I think I am right in saying that when those old taxes on knowledge, on paper and on printed matter, were reduced there was considerable opposition on the ground that they were luxury taxes. I have heard it said in this House by hon. Members opposite that the Entertainments Duty is a luxury tax. I do not take that view. I think that this tax stands in a quite different category. It is a bad tax for many reasons.
We have in this country accepted the view that the wealthier people should contribute a greater proportion from income to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is reasonable. It is a principle of taxation admitted by all parties. But even with the remissions made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) the Entertainments Duty is still an oppressive tax falling more heavily on the people who pay the lower prices of admission than it does upon those who pay more expensively for admission. On all prices of seats up to 1s. 3d. the present percentage of duty is from 14 to 20 per cent., but the percentage of tax on prices of admission of 15s. and above is between 11.6 per cent. and 13.3 per cent. In other words, the poorer the people the greater the percentage tax that they pay in Entertainments Duty.
When this tax was first introduced eight or nine years ago it was full of anomalies. As time has gone on, this House has tried to correct one anomaly after another, but the net result of those Amendments of the original tax has only been to create more anomalies and to draw a quite illogical and absurd line of demarcation between what is taxed and what is not taxed. Moreover, since this tax was first introduced new forms of entertainment have arisen. I understand, though I am not familiar with this question, that the cabaret entertainment did not exist when the Entertainment Duty was first imposed. To-day I believe cabarets are a fashionable source of entertainment, and yet they pay no Entertainment Duty. I believe, and again I have no knowledge of this particular form of entertainment, that night clubs, legislation for which has baffled the Home Secretary—places which failed to fortify the revenue as the right hon.
Gentleman would have them do—are no doubt providing considerable entertainments without assisting the Exchequer in the Entertainments Duty. It seems to me also that the entertainment providers have a sound ground of complaint, due to the quite recent development of broadcasting. I am not suggesting that broadcasting should be taxed through the Entertainment Duties but it seems to me they have a quite legitimate ground of complaint that broadcasting, which is becoming more and more popular, has not the same kind of duty to pay, while the entertainments industry, which is being used often enough to provide entertainment for those who listen in, is bearing this burden. Therefore, I suggest that since the duty was first imposed the character and problem of the entertainments industry as a whole has changed very substantially, and this rather absurd, vexatious duty ought now to be abolished in fulfilment of pledges made when it was first introduced.
This tax is not merely a tax on the entertainment of the people. It is a tax upon industry. I do not wish to go into whole question of the incidence of this tax but I would point out that the real cost of this duty is more than the amount that is collected by the Exchequer. Even if we suppose that the whole of the duty is paid by the consumer, that is to say by those who purchase tickets of admission to entertainments, the fact that the price of seats is higher will do something to lessen the demand for entertainment. There is no doubt that there is a limited amount of money to be spent upon entertainment. If entertainment charges were ten times as high as they are now, people would not pay for entertainment as they do to-day. Insofar as the addition to the tax borne by the consumer limits the demand for entertainment, it reacts unfavourably upon the entertainment providers, and it therefore tends to limit what the right hon. Gentleman receives in Entertainments Duty, whilst at the same time it restricts the resources from which the right hon. Gentleman draws Income Tax from those engaged in the entertainments industry. In fact, this tax, although it may be a tax upon consumers, is a tax which penalises a particular industry which I submit is deserving of encouragement.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are great supporters—they are the knight errants—to-day of industries of substantial importance that are in economic difficulties. We have had within the last few weeks proposals before this House to come to the assistance of industries which are in serious straits. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a little of his sympathy for depressed industries to the entertainments industry which for nearly 10 years has been subjected to a special duty over and above the taxes paid by all industries? Can he come to the aid of this industry, and show it a little sympathy, not by putting on a duty, not by providing it with money, but simply by removing an intolerable burden? It is an extraordinary thing that in this country the entertainments industry is in the grip of the Treasury, in the grip of the landlords with regard to the theatres; in the grip of the film renters in regard to the cinema; and yet abroad it has been the desire of public bodies to provide public money for the assistance of entertainment. I would suggest there is a very strong case for the right hon. Gentleman finally to abolish this duty. It is an industry of substantial importance. We have heard about industries of substantial importance. It is a necessary industry, because entertainment and education are important services in the life of the people, and it ought not to be penalised as it is being penalised to-day by a particularly obnoxious kind of tax which is not borne by any other industry. As time goes on, we shall find there will be alternative forms of entertainment not called upon to pay the duty, such as cabaret shows, which will be fostered at the expense of what might be called the legitimate industry. It seems to me quite fantastic and absurd that the man or woman who desires to see grand opera should have to pay the tax, while any frivolous person who wishes to waste a couple of hours at a cabaret show should be free of the tax. If there is to be a tax, it ought to be upon the cabaret show and should be taken off the legitimate forms of entertainment, which are really a form of national education. I should prefer to see the right hon. Gentleman not extracting these millions from the Entertainments Duty, but devoting an equivalent amount of money to the
encouragement of open air sports and entertainments and the encouragement of art, literature, music and the drama, rather than driving those people who are living by these services to contribute what is to them an exceptional burden to the Exchequer.
The sum which is raised by these taxes is not a very large one. It is one which the right hon. Gentleman, I feel sure, could manage to do without, and yet it is a sum which is bearing very heavily upon a legitimate industry. I hope that in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strong expression of view that he is in favour of the abolition of this tax, and that it is a case which has a very considerable claim upon his sympathies, he will see his way on this occasion to support us in the abolition of the duty. If he does so, it will be the only occasion probably, that I shall find myself in agreement with him so long as this Parliament lasts. At least, it will be a gesture of friendliness on his part, and it will be the straight thing for him to do, having regard to his expressed views and the justice of the case. It would meet with the approval of every party in this House, were he to abolish a duty which is antiquated and vexatious.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I can extend to the hon. Member my measure of sympathy, but I am afraid that I am not able to carry that sentiment into practical action on this occasion. There is a very great deal of truth in what he says about the severe manner in which this duty has pressed upon the industry. The original intention of the tax was that it should be passed on to the consumer, that is to say, the public, but there have been reactions which have very seriously affected certain branches of the theatrical and entertainment profession. That was partly dealt with last year by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in his Budget, by remissions of the duty amounting to about £4,000,000 out of the £9,500,000 which the duty was then estimated to produce. Those remissions did not, in my opinion, fully meet the difficulties of the industry. There are some theatres in particular, which are to a very large extent the home of drama in this country, which have the very highest possible productions and play a great part
in maintaining a high standard of theatrical art here, which did not share to an appreciable extent in the remissions which the right hon. Gentleman was able to give to the cheaper forms of entertainment and the cheaper seats.
I have certainly been very conscious of the hardship which presses upon the theatrical profession, and I should have been very glad had it been in my power to make some remission of the duty in this case, but an iron law restricts the liberty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his sentiments may be, and however keen his sympathy. However much I might like to find myself in agreement, if only for once in this Parliament, with the hon. Member who moved this Motion, I am unable to find the money which would enable the tax to be reduced again this year. I carefully safeguarded myself, even when I was not a Member of this House, in saying that while I would like to see this duty removed, it could only be done in conjunction with a general survey of the finance of the year and in relation to the financial position. It is the financial position rather than the particular merits of the controversy which lead me to be unable to meet the wishes expressed by the Mover of the Motion. To reduce the duty as proposed would cost us £5,800,000 in a full year, and £4,000,000 in the present year. [An HON. MEMBER: "A penny on the Income Tax."] I believe it would be very much more inconvenient even than all the disadvantages of this duty, to put an additional penny on the Income Tax. To decrease the Income Tax by a standard rate of fivepence would involve a very great deal of friction and complication in all the calculations. Greatly as I should have liked to have increased in some manner the remissions which the hon. Member made from the Treasury last year, I find it is beyond my power to do so, and I must, therefore, meet with a dull, cold negative the appeal which has been made so engagingly by my hon. Friend.

Captain BENN: We are not quite the masters of our own fate in this House in the matter of new Clauses. We might wish to move Clauses dealing in detail with this subject, for example, the remission of part of this taxation. I must not be held to be supporting, necessarily, the total abolition of this duty, by voting for this Motion to-day, although in
general principle I do support the remission of this tax. That part of the tax could be remitted, following upon what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the late Government, I have not the least doubt. I am totally unmoved by what the Chancellor says about the balance of his Budget, and not having any money for this purpose. The balance of this Budget has been steadily to increase the burden falling upon the poorer people. He has resisted every appeal made from this side to lighten that burden. Not one single concession has he given for the lower end of the scale of wealth. When he says he has no money, even for a small concession, I would remind him that had it not been for the presence of some of us here, much against our will, in the early hours of this morning, he would have smuggled through the Committee a proposal to give away a large sum of money, amounting to about £500,000, to landowners in this country. If he has got something in his private Budget, I mean the Budget which does not appear in his speeches but which is privately concocted by his officials, he could not do anything better than to select this, or one of the similarly inspired Amendments, as the object of his largesse. In view of what happened last night, I hope that we shall hear nothing more about his not having money to give away in concessions.

Colonel DAY: I beg to support the Motion. The Entertainments Duty is not only vicious but unjust, and it operates particularly hard upon the poorer patrons of places of entertainment. I will give some recent figures of what the poorer people have to pay in Entertainment Duty in comparison with the better class of seats. A person who pays anything between 8d. and 9d. has to pay a tax of 2d., which is 24 per cent. A person who pays 9d. for admission has to pay a tax of 2d., which is 22½ per cent. A person who pays 1s. 3d. has to pay a tax of 3d., which is 21½ per cent. A person who pays 1s. 4d. has to pay a tax of 4d., which is 25 per cent. A person who pays 1s. 6d. has to pay a tax of 4d., which is 22½ per cent. Now we come to the patrons of the better-class seats. A person who pays 5s. pays a tax of 9d., which is only 14 per cent. A person who pays 7s. 6d. pays a tax of 1s., which is only 14 per cent. A person who pays 20s. for a box pays a tax of 2s., which is only 12.5 per cent. A
person who pays 30s. pays a tax of 3s. 6d., which is 11.6 per cent. That shows that the persons who can afford the better priced seats are let off with exactly half the tax.
The proprietors of the entertainment industry are forced into collecting this Entertainments Duty, and making themselves Income Tax collectors for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition to that, they have to allow for expenses which are put on to their shoulders by the employment of additional clerks and auditors who audit their balance sheets so that they can be sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further, they have to take out an insurance bond for which they have to pay. That is not the greatest hardship. The greatest hardship to the proprietors of these houses is that they are taxed on their takings. This is a tax not only on profits as in every other industry, but a tax on losses. The losses of the entertainment providers throughout the country during the last two or three years have been stupendous. This is a vexatious tax in the extreme.
The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the tax said that it was a device on his part to compel people who otherwise did not contribute to the revenue of the country to contribute to the War taxation which he was raising from all classes of the community. It was understood when that Budget was introduced that this tax would be abandoned in about two years after the Armistice. I have some very interesting statistics, which I have taken from a tour which comprised 13 halls in London and the provinces. In the case of this combine, which owns 16 theatres, the figures show that 131,000 people have paid for admission to the cheaper parts of the houses on which the tax has been remitted during the last 12 months, and in the other parts of the theatres the tax paid represents 19 per cent. of the net admissions. In one theatre in Cardiff 154,000 more people paid for admission into the cheaper parts of the theatre, on which the tax had been reduced or taken off, than in 1923. In one theatre in Nottingham 155,000 more people paid for admission in 1924 at the reduced prices over and above the number who patronised the theatre in 1923. That proves that the people want cheap amusement.
This tax operates in a manner the reverse of that in which Income Tax operates. In the case of Income Tax the people who earn the smallest income pay the smallest proportion of tax. As the income increases the proportion of tax also increases. But in the case of the Entertainments Duty the people who earn the smallest amount of money and patronise the cheapest seats have to pay twice the percentage that is paid by those who patronise the higher-priced seats. The yield of the tax is falling steadily. In 1920–21 it produced £11,750,000; in 1921–22 it dropped to £10,250,000; in 1922–23 it dropped to £9,603,000; in 1923–24 it dropped to £9,285,000; and at present, with the remissions made last year, the yield is £6,100,000. These figures tell their own story.
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause spoke of some of the anomalies. One very great anomaly is that at Preston a little while ago the people had to pay a tax for the seats that were erected to enable them to witness the guild show, but in London no tax was charged. Another great anomaly with reference to the Entertainments Tax is that in the West End of London anyone can go to one of the hotels and pay a pound or 30s., and, without having to pay an Entertainment Tax, see a first-class musical hall entertainment. Those who go there see a variety show, a cabaret show. They see girls with all the same dresses as are worn in a theatre. They have scenery and they have an exact replica of the performances in a West End theatre, but that is unfair competition. They are also allowed, in many of the clubs and hotels, to bring a guest for a payment of 7s. 6d. or sometimes 10s., and the guest sees a variety entertainment no different from what he sees in the West End variety theatres. That is unfair competition with these variety houses. I do not suggest that you should tax the cabaret or the hotels or the broadcasting companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] What I do suggest is that the tax should be abolished entirely.
This tax violates the fundamental principles of taxation as laid down for public finance. It is not a tax on income. It is a tax on losses, so far as the majority of theatrical proprietors are
concerned. We have heard a lot lately about bogus managers. The bogus manager is created by a touring manager touring the provinces and playing at theatres where both he and the proprietor of the theatre lose money simply because the Government take practically 20 per cent. of the admission money in taxes. The tax is wrong, and after the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) has given us, I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will, in view of the very bad state of affairs in the variety and theatrical world, agree to the abolition of this tax. It is impossible for theatrical or variety managers to cut down expenses further. They have cut them down to a minimum. Their staffs have been reduced and, unfortunately, wages have been reduced and artists' salaries and contracts have all been varied. There is no way of saving a lot of the smaller proprietors from ruin except by the abolition of this tax.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I wish to support this Clause, but from a point of view different from that which my hon. Friends have put forward. I want to see the Entertainments Duty abolished from the standpoint of unemployment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, admitted that the remissions by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the taxes last year on tea, sugar and dried fruit had reached the consumer indirectly. Therefore, the working classes had a greater purchasing power, which meant the creation of more employment in some of the industries of the country. So far as the Entertainments Duty is concerned, the Chancellor has just admitted that remission was given to the extent of £4,500,000. That means that the money reached the majority of the working classes not indirectly but directly, because they did not pay the tax, and if they had £4,500,000 more directly to spend it must have created more employment in some of the industries of the country. Therefore, if the Chancellor would consent to the abolition of this tax now, which is something like £6,000,000, that amount would go directly into the pockets of 80 or 90 per cent. of the working classes of the country and this would help to create more employment.
The unemployment question is a vital question at the present time. Next Sunday is going to be called Unemployment Sunday. This question is going to be discussed in practically every part of the country from Scotland down to South Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Sabbath!"] I am going to break the Sabbath next Sunday by speaking on unemployment. I am going to take part in a demonstration next Sunday. The Chancellor could do something by remitting this tax. If we were only to set 10,000 or 20,000 people to work by reducing this tax, and thus giving more purchasing power to the working classes, he would have done some good. I hope that he will follow the good example of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and bestow some benefit on the whole of the working classes of the country.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: There is one point to which I wish to direct attention in connection with this matter. A very large body of the supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been definitely committed to the abolition of this tax. How comes it about that apparently that section of the Committee seem to be able to get rid of their obligations in a remarkably easy manner? I have a special recollection that when the former Conservative Government were in office we had a great conference upstairs with the object of securing the abolition of the Entertainments Duty and hon. Members who took part in that conference were deeply concerned to secure that result. A deputation was authorised to wait on the Government of the day, and there was a feeling of great disappointment at the result. Last year, when we had the

Labour Government, pressure for the abolition of this tax was continued. Hon. Members opposite have now declared off. That is not honouring their obligations. We have heard criticism of the Labour party on this very score, but in this case we have men who have undertaken this obligation, and instead of seeking to fulfil it they are—and this is putting it very mildly—lying low and saying nothing on the subject. If that is what they call honourably fulfilling their promises, then they are entitled to any compliment that there may be.

Mr. MORRIS: I have no desire to enter into the merits of the Entertainments Duty, especially after the way in which the Chancellor expressed his sympathy with the objects of this Amendment. There is only one thing, he said, which prevents the remission, and that is the iron law which compels him to obtain the money. There is one consideration which may commend itself to him. He has so carefully balanced his Budget by taking taxes off on the one hand and imposing them on the other that he might apply that system of balancing his Budget now by relieving taxation in this way. He has imposed a tax on cinema films, and if he cannot see his way to grant the whole of the remission asked for in this Amendment, he might grant a remission the equivalent of the duty which he hopes to receive from the import duty on cinema films. I suggest that that is a balancing which might very well commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 249.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[7.46 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clowes, S.
Greenall, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Connolly, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baker, Walter
Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Barnes, A.
Dalton, Hugh
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)


Barr, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Duckworth, John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Duncan, C.
Hardie, George D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Briant, Frank
England, Colonel A.
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Forrest, W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-!e-Spring)
Thurtle, E.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Warne, G. H.


Kenyon, Barnet
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


MacLaren, Andrew
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris, R. H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Windsor, Walter


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.
Wright, W.


Murnin, H.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Paling, W.
Taylor, R. A.



Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harland, A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
Harrison, G. J. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cope, Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hawke, John Anthony


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crook, C. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Berry, Sir George
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Holland, Sir Arthur


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Blundell, F. N.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elveden, Viscount
Jacob, A. E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fermoy, Lord
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Burman, J. B.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. Q.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fleming, D. P.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Cassels, J. D.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lougher, L.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gates, Percy
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gee, Captain R.
Lumley, L. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gretton, Colonel John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal-




Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Margesson, Captain D.
Preston, William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Radford, E. A.
Storry, Deans, R.


Meller, R. J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Merriman, F. B.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Remer, J. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Remnant, Sir James
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Moles, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Waddington, R.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Rye, F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Murchison, C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandeman, A. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Neville, R. J.
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nuttall, Ellis
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Oakley, T.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Skelton, A. N.
Wolmer, Viscount


Pennefather, Sir John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Perring, William George
Sprot, Sir Alexander



Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo-V., c. 18, Section 21.)

Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920 (which provides for a deduction from assessable income in respect of children) shall have effect as if for the words "thirty-six pounds" and "twenty-seven pounds" there were substituted respectively, the words "fifty pounds" and "forty pounds."—[Mr. Viant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The principle embodied in the Clause will commend itself, I hope, to the majority of this Committee. The majority of Members present who have at the present time young families, will appreciate the difficulties which confront parents in training and rearing young families. The net result of the Clause would be that, for the first child, there would be an increased allowance of £14, and for the second £13. The majority of parents, we know, are desirous of giving their children all the opportunities they can to improve their education, and we feel that this Committee would be justified in showing its appreciation of such desire on the part of parents in a practical way, by adopting this Clause. Furthermore, we feel that as concessions have been already made to those who are already well blessed with this world's goods, a concession of this kind would at least do something to allay the irritation that
might be caused by the concessions already made. I hope, therefore, this Clause will commend itself to the Committee, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The hon. Member who has moved this Clause has dealt with it from the point of view of a particular grievance rather than in relation to the whole system of allowances, and it is well to remind the Committee that those allowances were adopted as a result of a very exhaustive inquiry held by a strong Royal Commission. We have in our Income Tax code now practically the whole system they recommended, and my right hon. Friend has gone even further this year in the direction of alleviating the burden on small incomes for such objects as the bringing up of young families, in the additional advantages which he has given by his remissions in the lower scale, and I am afraid we cannot make any further concessions. This particular proposal would cost £900,000 in the current year, and £2,500,000 in a full year.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. DALTON: I am afraid it is hopeless to appeal to the Government to reconsider the decision reached, but I wish to submit one further consideration. We have criticised reductions in the Income Tax standard rate on the ground that they involve giving a large relief to the
rich than to the poor, but I submit this Clause would have the effect, not of giving a larger relief to the rich than to the poor, but of giving equal relief to all. That is to say, a man and wife with three children, for example, would get exactly the same relief in terms of money, whatever their income might be, provided they were above the Income Tax limit. On that general ground, that it is undesirable to give greater relief to the rich than to the poor, I would point out that one way of giving relief and not falling into that objectionable method would be found in

accepting an Amendment on these lines. The Financial Secretary tells us that the cost of a full year would be £2,500,000. That is only about a halfpenny in the £ on Income Tax. It would be very much more satisfactory, from the point of view of the balance of benefits between different sections of the community, to give some measure of relief along those lines, even if it meant giving rather less relief under the standard rate.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 257.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Or. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duckworth, John
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windson, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, C.
Berry, Sir George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Blundell, F. N.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bennett, A. J.
Brass, Captain W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gretton, Colonel John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oakley, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pennefather, Sir John


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harland, A.
Penny, Frederick George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, William George


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hawke, John Anthony
Pilcher, G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Preston, William


Cassels, J. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Remer, J. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rye, F. G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Major I.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandon, Lord


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shepperson, E. W.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Crook, C. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Crooksnank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Storry, Deans, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Drewe, C.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliott, Captain Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Elveden, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waddington, R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meller, R. J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fielden, E. B.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fleming, D. P.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mores, Thomas
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Womersley, W. J.


Gates, Percy
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.



Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grace, John
Neville, R. J.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Grant, J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Captain Douglas Hacking.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Sugar Duties.)

"As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the
duties chargeable upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin, in pursuance of Sections four and five of the Finance Act,
1924, and the First Schedule to that Act, shall cease."—[Mr. W. M. Adamson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There is not time to enter into details on this question, but in the moment or two that are at my disposal I would point out that the relevant Clause in this year's Budget contains two references, one to the 1919 Act, dealing with Colonial Preference, and another to the Finance Act of last year. I hold the opinion that the Clause dealing with Preference is an infringement of the Rights of Parliament, because it extends for a period of 10 years and to some extent stabilises Customs Duties which the House of Commons is entitled to modify, reduce or increase every year, or, as we hope, even to abolish. It must be obvious to the Treasury that if for a period of 10 years these preferences are to be given upon Colonially-produced sugar, it would be impossible for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal those duties during that period of 10 years. It is certainly going to be very difficult for a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to do other than continue what might be the stabilised Customs Duties on sugar. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with this matter more fully than he did when it was last discussed in the early hours of the morning. I would like to recall the main points in the history of the Sugar Duty so that we may appreciate more fully the position in which the Budget places us. A Clause of the Finance Bill refers to the 1924 Act. It is timely to remind the House of what took place with regard to the reduction of Sugar Duties in the Budget of last year. The duty per cwt. of sugar was reduced from 25s. 8d. to 11s. 8d. That was a reduction of the Customs Duty upon a lb. of sugar from 2¾d. to 1¼d., or a reduction of 1½d. a lb. That was done at a loss to the revenue of—

It being a quarter past Bight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now", and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
It is always an unpleasant task to interrupt the ordinary business of Parliament, particularly at this congested period of the Session, by initiating a discussion on a private Bill, but I am perfectly sure that the House, and particularly hon. Members opposite, will give me credit for the fact that I am not doing it merely with the motive of obstruction. I initiated a similar discussion last year when the party to which I belong was in office; I did so in the previous year, and it is only because I feel that this House will have to take some sharp action with the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and that it is only by defeating one of their Bills that we are likely to get much further in the improvements which we are endeavouring to obtain from the company, that I take this step. At the same time, while regretting the necessity for interrupting the ordinary business in this manner, it seems a good thing that railway companies should periodically have their services or lack of services reviewed and criticised in this House. In a statement sent out by the promoters of the Bill—it was not sent to me, but I accidentally became possessed of a copy—they make the complaint that a discussion such as I propose to initiate should not take place on this Bill. Our point is that this is the only way in which Parliament can get an opportunity of discussing matters of this sort.
We are anxious to obtain an efficient railway service in this country. The Prime Minister in a recent speech addressed a few words to the employers of this country and made an appeal to them for a 10 per cent. increase of efficiency. That appeal of the Prime Minister may
have a good effect on employers of labour. I hope it will, but I am perfectly sure that even the Prime Minister is not optimistic enough to believe that his appeal will have any effect on a railway company. All appeals to railway companies fall upon deaf ears. Deputations come and go and still nothing appears to done. Questions are asked from all parts of the House to the Minister of Transport. In some way the average private Member gets the idea into his head that the Minister of Transport, by waving a magic wand, can make the railway companies do whatever he wishes. These questions are sometimes put to the Minister with great persistence, and I have often sat here when the right hon. Gentleman was hard pressed and watched him look reproachfully at his questioners while he said in pathetic terms, "I have no power to compel railway companies to do anything." Business people and the public generally continue to grumble, but we get no improvement. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he has some power over railway companies to-night. Actions speak louder than words, and the defeat of this Bill will have more effect upon the efficiency of the railway companies of this country than a dozen speeches from the Prime Minister. The defeat of this Bill would warn them that this House is not prepared to continue granting fresh powers to private railway companies while the trade of the country is being hampered by the inefficiency of those companies.
I desire to give one definite example of the procrastination of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and I will ask the House if a company which behaves as this company has behaved in regard to this particular matter is fit to have further powers conferred upon it If, during this evening, we are to have a reply on behalf of the company, I would ask for a definite statement from one of the company's spokesmen on this matter. I do not know who the spokesman for the company will be. Usually it is an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Birmingham, but evidently he is on holiday or is too busy with other companies. On occasion Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, now no longer with us, acted in that capacity, and during the last Session I think the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Sir E. Hume
Williams), along with the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Murrough Wilson), undertook the duty. Two years ago I initiated a discussion in this House in regard to inadequate travelling facilities in North London, and I alleged then, as I do now, that the London and North Eastern Railway Company were pursuing a dog-in-the-manger policy in North London, doing nothing themselves and preventing anybody else from doing anything. Members of all parties appealed to the company, first, to electrify the northern suburban line and, second, to withdraw the embargo which they have placed upon the power of anybody to construct a tube railway north of Finsbury Park. I do not propose to discuss the desirability of the tube railway because the Minister of Transport has recently set up a committee to go into that question, and I believe it has already started work. Neither do I propose to spend any time in endeavouring to describe the travelling facilities in North London. They are so bad that I hesitate to describe them in my own language. The Minister two years ago well described them in one word as "deplorable," and he also indicated a remedy. I quote from his speech made in this House on 14th June, 1923:
I admit again that you can only mitigate the unfortunate circumstances there and you want either electrification or new railways or both in that locality to put things on a proper footing and serve the teeming scores of thousands who live there and have old and young, weak and strong, to go in every day to their work under these unfortunate conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; cols. 848–9, Vol. 165.]
Up to that time the attitude of the London and North Eastern Railway Company was one of contempt. One of their distinguished representatives in the House of Commons, who at that time represented the City of London and who has now gone to another place, sneered at the idea that this House had any business to interfere with the doings of the railway company. When that Debate took place the company's representatives in this House were, however, visibly alarmed by the serious turn which matters took because there were indications that the Bill was likely to be defeated. Accordingly the representatives of the company in this House had to say
something. May I quote, first, from the statement made by Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, who at that time spoke as a representative of the company? He said:
This subject of the electrification of London suburban traffic, as far as the London and North Eastern Railway Company are concerned, has been the subject-matter of very earnest consideration for some considerable time past …. The Company …. are giving immediate attention to the whole problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; col. 825; Vol. 165.]
He was followed by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire, who announced that he was a director of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company, and who said:
We are absolutely at this moment going into the whole question of electrification of the suburban traffic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; col. 836, Vol. 165.]

Mr. MURROUGH J. WILSON: Hear! hear!

Mr. MORRISON: I am glad the hon. Member approves of the quotation, but I would just remind him that it is from a speech made two years ago. The Minister of Transport, defining his attitude on that occasion, said:
I have been in fairly constant touch with the London and North Eastern Company and, candidly, they are not unsympathetic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; col. 849, Vol. 165.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the House not to be too hard upon the company, as they had practically promised electrification, and I think he would admit that, without this appeal, the Bill would have been lost that night. The Second Reading of the Bill was carried, therefore, two years ago, and, following that, there immediately appeared a series of statements in the Press, inspired statements, I think, to the effect that the company were taking immediate steps to bring about the electrification of their London suburban lines. The company did not deny this statement, and the result was that the vast population of North London, of over half a million people, believed until very recently that something was going to be done at last to meet their difficulties. A whole year passed, and we had another discussion in this House, on the 5th March, 1924, or 15 months ago, and the company on that occasion was defended by the hon. and
learned Member for Bassetlaw and by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division, the latter of whom said:
As the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw Division pointed out, we hope to electrify the line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1924; col. 1543, Vol. 170.]
I am wondering what they will say to-night, after we have waited another year. This is not a party question at all. During the last two Debates that have taken place on this subject I have been supported by Lord Ednam, who is no longer a Member of this House, but who would otherwise have taken up the same attitude to-night. Those of us who are keenly interested in this subject waited after that Debate in March of last year for a full year, and we then went on a deputation to see the Divisional General Manager of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company on 12th February last. The deputation consisted of several Members of Parliament, from all parties in the House, and a number of public officials. We had two hours with the Divisional General Manager at Liverpool Street Station, and, at the end of the proceedings, he said he would give his reply in writing. It took him seven weeks to give his reply in writing, and while I will not read the reply, this was the last sentence of what we succeeded in wringing from the Divisional General Manager after seven weeks:
I am not in a position to give you any definite answer, but I can assure you that everything possible is being done to hasten the preparation of the necessary technical and other information to enable a conclusion to be reached at as early a date as possible.
The net result, then, as far as the public is concerned, is that all of us are two years older, and the company is still considering the matter. Perhaps in the circumstances I may be forgiven, for repeating the words of the Prime Minister: "How long, oh Lord, how long?" I find to-day that a statement has been issued by the promoters of this Bill to some of the Members of the House, in which they say:
The promoters still have the question of electrical traction under consideration, and have made material advances in the preparation of a scheme for the use of electrical traction on certain of their lines. The recent announcement that a Committee appointed by the Government intend to inquire closely into the question of constructing new tube railways north and north-east of London has a most important
bearing upon the construction by the promoters of any scheme for the electrification of surface railways in the same area.
I think that last sentence is most impertinent, to suggest to Members of this House, many of whom are not so intimately acquainted with this subject as are those of us who are on the spot, that the reason why they have not come to a decision is because the Government has set up a Committee to inquire into the question of constructing tube railways. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport would be the first to state in this House that it is less than a month ago since he made that decision to set up that inquiry, and now we are told that the reason why they have not come to a decision is because of that inquiry.

Mr. M. J. WILSON: How does the hon. Member read that into the statement?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not read anything into it but what it says. Is not that an explanation of the delay and of why they have not come to a decision? If it is not intended for that, why is it put in? I want to ask the Minister of Transport what is his position in regard to this Bill. I think it must be a very uncomfortable one. Recently, the House of Commons devoted a day to discussing his Vote, and during his statement he went out of his way to give certain figures as to money that was going to be expended on works by railway companies in this country. I ventured to interrupt him, and to ask whether any of that money that the railway companies had informed him they were prepared to spend, would be spent on electrification, and he replied that, as far as he knew, he regretted to say none of it was going to be spent on electrification. I do not know whether or not he will argue, according to the suggestion of this statement to-night, that, because we are going to have a public inquiry, this Bill ought to be allowed to go through and that we ought to give the company a little longer time in which to make up their mind, not necessarily to electrify the lines, but to say whether they will electrify them or not, instead of keeping everybody in doubt as to what they are going to do.
I should like the Minister to be good enough to tell me whether, in the public inquiry that will take place, there is power under the London Traffic Act to
call upon the railway company to give evidence on this matter. If there is no power under that Act to order the railway company to come and give evidence at this inquiry, I suggest that there is a very real likelihood that this public inquiry may be practically abortive, because of the fact that those holding it will be unable to know what the London and North Eastern Railway Company intend to do, and, unless they know that, it will be very difficult for them to bring in any reasonable report on the matter. What I say again is, that all we are asking for to-night is a plain answer to a plain question, as to whether the London and North Eastern Railway Company are going to electrify or modernise the northern line from Finsbury Park northward.
In regard to the Government position, two years ago when unemployment was serious—not more serious than to-day, as some of us think—a Cabinet Committee on Unemployment it was understood appealed to the railway companies of this country to carry out schemes of electrification in order to provide employment. The London and North-Eastern Railway Company has made no reply to that appeal, though this particular scheme now before us was expected to be one of the first. The last Conservative Government was flouted by this company. They appealed to the company to carry out the electrification proposals, not only from the point of view of the convenience of the public, but from the point of view of providing work for unemployed skilled men. The company flouted the Conservative Government. They flouted the Labour Government. I should like now to ask the present Government what they are going to do about it?
Electrification, it is almost unnecessary to point out, would provide useful work for a great many skilled men in London, particularly engineers; and not only so, but I would suggest to this House that an inefficient railway system is a considerable factor in unemployment, and hinders the revival of industry. Unemployment at the present time is increasing. Two years ago the Government appealed to the railway companies to carry out schemes of electrification. Are they going to appeal again at the present time? I would suggest to them that the best appeal that they could make would
be to ask their supporters to go into the Lobby against this Bill. That would have a better effect than all the other appeals —a better effect than deputations to the Government, than the representations of local bodies of various kinds. At present, as things are, the companies pay no attention to what is said, and still go on their own sweet way doing what they like. The present is an opportunity for the Government to force at least one railway company to make its contribution to providing work for some of the unemployed. I hope the Minister of Transport will speak out to-night, and say what everybody knows 'must be in his mind, that it is high time that the company should get a move on in this matter. For two years they have led the Government to suppose that this matter was under consideration. I do not suggest that it has reached the stage when they can get to work, but I do put it to this House that we have arrived at a time when the companies ought to be able to say that they are going to electrify the line, or they are not. We do not want to be humbugged about it any longer. Perhaps it is too much to hope that the Minister of Transport will get up now, and instead of appealing to the companies—although I have no objection to that—and although I voted against the Bill on a former occasion—advise his supporters to go into the Lobby to defeat this Bill. I am convinced that unless a private Bill of a railway company is defeated in this House we are not likely to get much further towards a more efficient railway system in this country. I hope the result of this Debate and Division will be to teach a lesson to this railway company, the London and North Eastern, and for the various reasons I have stated, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
According to this Bill the railway company concerned are asking for powers to carry out a great many changes which will affect the travelling public and the people of the country. I think we would all of us feel more convinced of the good that is going to follow from the passing of the present Bill if we were satisfied that the companies carried out a little better their obligations to the travelling public
at the present time. Under that general head I only want to make one observation and one criticism, and that is in regard to the railway station at Penistone as it exists now. Penistone has the reputation, outside Scotland, of being the coldest station in England. I hope hon. Members will not think I am guilty of an act of merely local patriotism in raising the question of this station. I am thinking in national terms. I can imagine few ways in which a railway company could impress the country more than by improving the facilities available in that bleak and most uncomfortable railway station in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
But the real object I have in rising to oppose this Bill concerns a particular matter in my own constituency, and involves a matter of principle in so far as a railway, still under private control, does infringe upon the welfare of the community at that particular point. Part of Clause 17 deals with this matter. Hon. Members will see that the company is proposing under that Clause the removal or modification of footpaths in the vicinity of Thurgoland. I do not want to weary the House by going into details, but I should like to draw attention to the necessity there is for safeguarding the right of the community in the immediate neighbourhood. Clause 17 and cognate Clauses appear to contain, if carried into law, what will mean a real hardship upon people living thereabout. It is proposed to do away with the footpath that goes over the existing railway tunnel and to deflect a new road in a north-westerly direction. The effect of that will be to cause people using the new road to go half a mile out of their way to get to the south-eastern part of the village, and there will be quite a considerable number of workmen and workwomen, not to speak of other persons, who now use the existing road, who will be inconvenienced by the change. It will mean that at the return from the day's work they will have to go a mile out of their way—this in order to earn their livelihood. That is not the whole of the difficulty, for the new road simply compensates for the existing footpath which may be taken away when the alterations are completed.
What I am taking exception to on behalf of the local authority is that there is no proposal to provide an alternative
road for the one over the existing tunnel which will be lost. The local authority have approached the railway company and dicussed the idea of putting a railway bridge over the cutting which will be left when the tunnel has been removed, but the railway company have objected to this on the ground that it would be much too costly; and I think that in advancing that point the company were aware that they have not provided adequate compensation for the people in the neighbourhood. The local authority proposed a footpath, not a wide path, but a footpath, running in a south-easterly direction, which would have cut across the railway at a point where no very great expenditure would be involved in making a small bridge. On this proposition the railway company has as yet not seen its way to make any definite offer. I think Members will realise that what the local authority are asking for is only reasonable compensation for the loss of two pathways. I do not want to suggest that the railways are going to exist for all time, but if the railway company get this proposal they will be compelling all people using that road, so long as the facilities to be provided in this Bill are maintained, to walk one mile out of their way each time they do a return journey. That is one side of the matter; and the other is that the railway company do not offer any compensation for the second road which they propose to remove.
In concluding this matter, I would like to put the point of view of a little community. It is not only a matter of economic inconvenience or physical hardship, not only a question of the failure to provide adequate compensation for the second road, but if they fail to get the footpath it will mean that a considerable number of the inhabitants at one end of the village will be thrown back upon the use of the main road if they want to get into the country. Everybody knows that the primary roads and the secondary roads are becoming every day more and more disagreeable for purposes of recreation, and on the grounds of health and recreation, and from the aesthetic point of view, there is a great claim to this footpath for the community. Although this is quite a small incident, there is here, I think, a real conflict of interests between the claims of a private body and the claims of the
community. We do not expect the present Minister of Transport to legislate from the Socialist point of view, but if he weighs up the claims of this mighty Goliath of a private company, and this small agricultural community, many of them hard-working men and women, I think he may feel it worth his while to put behind this little community the whole force of his mighty Government in order to see that an adequate measure of community justice is embodied in this Bill.

Mr. RHYS: This Bill deals mainly with a number of points which are of great importance in the North of England, but the London and North Eastern Railway also serves a large area of Essex, which is rapidly becoming a suburb of London. The whole County of Essex is rapidly being built over, and is rapidly developing, and nothing whatever is being done to facilitate the carrying backwards and forwards of the inhabitants of that area. Before the War the situation was very bad indeed—so I am informed, for I had nothing to do with it then—and various local councils were pressing upon the railway company to do something to increase the travelling facilities Ilford, Romford, and Brentwood are all growing parts. Between Ilford and Romford the London County Council are building their new estate at Becontree, and the station at Becontree is on the London and North Eastern Railway. I would ask the directors to go to Liverpool Street Station any night about five o'clock and see the crowding and struggling there is to get into the trains. I believe the railway company are doing the best they can under the present circumstances, and I do not think they can put on another train, for they are running head to tail as it is, but that is no reason why they should not endeavour to improve the traffic capacity of their line. In the case of Romford, however, there is a 45 minutes' interval between the trains at that hour. There is a fast train at 5 o'clock and one at 5.45, whereas the other end of London has underground railways with trains every few minutes.
Another hon. Member and I have done what we can to get the railway company to move, and the people of that district are tired of continual promises that something will be done. I have seen the
general manager of the company, who informs me that plans are under consideration for widening at Romford Station. Whether that is so I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I apologise. That is an unhappy way of phrasing it. What I meant to say was that I should be delighted to hear that progress is being made with those plans. Last year a Bill of the London and North Eastern Railway Company was before this House, and I was given to understand that we were giving them powers to construct a fly-over at Stratford. I should be interested to learn that that fly-over is being commenced. I am making no insinuations or allegations, but I should like an assurance from the railway company that they are beginning to put those powers into operation. As these structural alterations must take a long time, even if they were begun to-morrow, I suggest that, meanwhile, more consideration might be given to the district lying between London and Southend. Between London and Southend we have the services of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the North Eastern Railway, and Southend has a very adequate service, and I would like to ask whether it would not be possible to stop one or two of the fast trains at some of these bigger points in between? It could not make a difference of more than five or ten minutes to people travelling to Southend. They are very well served at the present time, and I think it is only right that this consideration should be given. I am speaking for the people in my own constituency, but I feel sure that I shall be backed up by those representing the districts on either side of me, because you have only got to read the local Press and you will see any amount of protests being made from all parts of the county. For these reasons I hope that this time we shall get some sort of definite satisfaction, because we cannot go on being fobbed off with these promises which have been going on much too long. I urge the railway company to give us a definite assurance that within a short space of time something will be put in hand.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: Very able speeches on this question have been made by the Mover of this Amendment
and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Reference has been made to the closing of a certain footpath.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if the hon. and learned Member is replying for the company, because we desire to raise some other points?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of Order.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Mine will not be the only reply on behalf of the company. I want to say a few words about the question of the footpath. It appears to me that this is a matter which ought to have been dealt with in Committee. I would like to point out that this Bill has already passed the House of Lords and a Committee of the House of Lords, and if we pass the Second Reading here to-night this Measure will go to a Committee of this House. Such questions as the diversion of a footpath are matters which ought not to be dealt with during the Second Reading Debate. As a matter of fact, there have been considerable negotiations with the local authorities in the neighbourhood to provide a footpath along the side of the railway cutting to take the place of the part of the footpath which has been taken away, and I hope soon that difficulty will be adjusted. I do not think, however, that that is a point which need be dealt with in any great detail, although I admit that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment spoke with considerable feeling about the necessity of that particular footpath.
9.0 P.M.
I am more concerned, however, with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite upon the question of the electrification of the line. That is a very serious question, and one which deserves the anxious consideration of this House on the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to remind the House what happened last year when the Second Reading of the Bill promoted by this company was before the House, and when the hon. Member who moved this Amendment spoke with his usual force upon the same points which he has raised to-day. This question has been the subject of dispute because in 1902 this railway company had been granted, as the result of a bargain, the power to go on with the construction of the line beyond Finsbury
Park. That was a contract entered into and the Great Northern Railway had been called upon to provide funds for the reconstruction of a derelict tube, and part of the understanding was that it should not compete with them unless they gave their consent. Last year the Debate turned upon whether that veto should stand or be done away with. Last year on behalf of the company I gave an undertaking that one of two things should happen, that either this railway company would keep the veto or give it up. That undertaking was that they would either keep the veto and electrify the line or they would abandon the veto and leave other competing companies to come in and complete the work.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Did they electrify the line?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: No. What I said was, that something will be prepared within a certain space of time, either to take immediate steps for the electrification of the line or to abrogate Section 36 of the Act, which gives this power of veto, in order that the Metropolitan Company might come in and construct the tube. On the last occasion a promise was made that if the Bill received its Second Reading and the Instruction was not pressed the company were ready to undertake that they would proceed with all due expedition with the proposal to electrically equip the northern section of the line up to Finsbury Park, and if they were unable to proceed to carry out such work, or failed to do so by October next, before the time for the introduction of Private Bills next Session, then they promised to waive any provisions, statutory or otherwise, under which their consent is required for the reconstruction of the northern section of the line. It is quite clear that the position taken up by this company was not to electrify the line, and they safeguarded themselves by promising that they would either electrify the line or withdraw their veto and give way to any company that might choose to construct the line.
What happened? Viscount Ednam, whose absence we all regret because he took a vital part in this Debate, pointed out the difficulties of third-class travelling in North London. On the last occasion when this matter was discussed,
Viscount Ednam asked the Minister of Transport whether he had any further information to give to the House in regard to the electrification of the northern suburban lines, and the Minister of Transport said he was glad to be able to inform the House that the directors were taking a broadminded view of the situation, and were prepared to waive at once any right they had to veto this scheme for the reconstruction of the railway.
It is quite clear that the position of the railway company is now that they have abandoned their veto, and, because that does not seem to have produced any practical effect, complaints are very quickly made and pressed by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) that we have not proceeded with electrification, although it is quite clear that the only undertaking come to was that the railway company would abandon the veto or electrify, and they have abandoned the veto. I am sure that the company take a broad view of the matter, because, after all, a railway company is the servant of the public, and its duty is to cater as far as it can for the comfort of the travelling public, upon such terms as may be possible on the assumption that the undertaking is to be carried out upon ordinary business lines.
Does the House realise what electrification really means? Electrification is spoken of sometimes as though it were like putting a window into your house, or rebuilding a workshop, or something of that kind; but the electrification of the suburban parts of this line means an expenditure of anything from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000, and the difficulties which stand in the way are enormous. It would occur at once, I am sure, to any Member of this House that it is a great deal harder and more expensive to electrify an existing railway system than it is to build a new system altogether. Let me give an example. First of all, there are the terminal difficulties that occur. If the result of electrification is to enable more lines to be run, say into King's Cross, what is going to happen to the trains? There is no means of enlarging the station, and the trains have to be stowed somewhere during the day. As hon. Members know, the surburban traffic has to run during a few hours of the day. It used to begin about 7 o'clock in the morning, but now, owing to the shorter
hours that are worked, it begins between 8 and 9 o'clock, and it goes on for about an hour, and then, again, there is the pressure in the evening. In the meantime, all these trains which have served the morning traffic, and are going to serve the evening traffic when the time comes, have to be stowed somewhere; they have to be housed. In the United States of America, and in other new countries, they have stations with one or two floors. Trains come in on one level and descend downstairs, where they are kept until they are required again in the evening. In London that is impossible, and garage accommodation, as it is called, has to be found for them. If hon. Members will look at this as a business proposition, as if they were railwaymen themselves, engaged in trying to carry out a proposal of this kind, they will realise the practical difficulties of that kind that are sure to arise.
Then you are going to electrify the line, and you want a power station. Where are you to put it? What system are you to adopt? It will cost £1,000,000; where is the money coming from? The rolling stock that you are using for your ordinary steam lines will have to be altered almost entirely. In order to empty a train quickly you must have doors to each compartment. A corridor train will not do, because you cannot get the people out of it in a short time. A service of trains running every two or three minutes during these few hours—not during the day— requires that the trains should be almost instantly emptied, and, therefore, you have to reconstruct the greater part of your rolling stock. Then, in the case of this particular line, there is, on the approach to London, a place called Hadley Wood, where there is a tunnel in which there are only two lines. The immense coal traffic coming into London blocks those two lines. If you are going to electrify them, and make four lines instead of two, you have to pull down the whole of the tunnel, for you cannot get more than two lines into it; or you would have to acquire land outside.
The House will have some idea of the magnitude of this Undertaking when I inform them that this last year the Great Northern section of the London and North Eastern Railway carried, in their suburban traffic alone, 32,274,000 people, and the Great Eastern section of the
railway carried, in one year alone, 107,580,000. That is an enormous traffic with which to have to deal, and it is complicated, as I have pointed out to the House, by the fact that it has all to be carried day by day in a few hours only. I am sure the House will realise that the scheme is vast, that it is extremely expensive, and that it is most difficult because of the existing metropolitan conditions. It is not, as I have pointed out, like making a new line in a new country, where you can get land easily, and have all the modern, up-to-date scientific arrangements of which you can take advantage. It is a much more expensive and difficult thing to adapt electric traction to your existing steam rolling stock.
Having said that, let me assure the House that this company has not been oblivious of the various statements that have been made in this House, which have been accurately and properly quoted by the hon. Member, as to what they hope to do in connection with the electrification of this line. They have spent during this year—that is to say, since the last Bill was before the House —on new capital engineering work, a sum of £1,193,000. Mindful, after the Debates that have taken place, of the fact that electrification, in their own interests as well as in the interests of the public, ought to come, and ought to come as soon as might be, they appointed, at the beginning of the year, a special electrical engineer, with a special staff. He is reporting from time to time, and is considering this phase of the subject in all its aspects—the provision of the capital, the voltage, the power station, and everything that it entails; and I am quite sure that every hon. Member will realise that for an engineer to study a question of that kind, with all the plans of this vast ramification of lines before him, and the extensive alterations which it involves, is a task which cannot be carried out in a day, or even in a year.
The difficulty, again, is rendered more severe by the financial crisis of the country at the present time. The House may realise that it is not an easy thing for a trader—and, after all, a railway company is a trader just like any individual—to contemplate an expenditure of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 in the hope that they may gain more. In order to pay a
very modest return to the shareholders of the company, they have had, for the last two years, to trench upon their reserves very largely. The House is doubtless aware that this company, in order to pay its 5 per cent. preference dividend and a very small dividend upon its deferred shares, has had to take very large sums out of its reserves. No business man would choose a time of that kind to go into any new heavy expenditure unless he was compelled, and above all things, unless he was convinced that the new expenditure was likely to be remunerative, to be a good proposition, and to lead ultimately to a substantial return. That is the difficulty that dogs not only every undertaking in the country but the railway companies as well. This is a very modest Bill. It only contemplates the creation of about 14 miles of railway. It involves the expenditure by the railway company of £1,200,000. I ask the House to say it would be really a very foolish thing to refuse a Second Reading to a Bill the provisions of which are undoubtedly useful and necessary, and which involves what in this time is a substantial expenditure, simply because they have not in these times, under the conditions and difficulties which I have detailed, been able to carry out what is undoubtedly their hope and their ultimate intention, to electrify the line if it can be done.
One word more. When this electrification scheme was being considered by the company, and the reports were being considered, a bombshell fell upon their deliberations because the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Jackson), who is a member of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport, said:
We believe that the problem which lies ahead of us is to try to do something to reduce unnecessary traffic operators in the slack hours of the day, and something to facilitate the traffic facilities at the peak hours of the day.
The peak is the highest point reached in traffic, when most people are moving.
For that purpose it will be necessary, in our opinion, to form other kinds of traffic. Further, I think the Minister will allow me to say it is our intention to inquire very closely into new tubes for North and North East, East and South East of London. The Minister has recently set up a Sub Committee of the Advisory Committee which will meet almost immediately to con-
sider these three new great tubes. We shall hold a public inquiry and take evidence, and so, I hope at the peak hours of the day we shall be able to supplement the buses and trams by this new method of traffic."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1925: col. 824. Vol. 184.]
So that hon. Members can realise that it is a little startling for the directorate of this company, who are contemplating this enormous expenditure upon electrification in order that they may deal themselves with the suburban traffic which they have to serve, to be suddenly told, with the authority of the Government behind it, and perhaps the financial backing, that three or four tubes are to be constructed to serve the very district in respect of which they are contemplating this great expenditure.

Mr. RHYS: The building of tubes, so far as the East of London goes, does not. in any way affect my argument for Essex, that tubes can in the nature of things only go a short way, and the whole of Essex is becoming a great dormitory and must have further facilities.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should have thought a tube might easily, when it gets into the country, cease to be a tube and become a surface railway.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The terms of reference to the London Traffic Advisory Committee are not as stated in the case put forward by the London and North Eastern Company in paragraph 7 on page 2, nor as stated by my hon. Friend. These were the terms of reference:
To consider what steps shall be taken to provide adequate travelling facilities in North and North East London, also what steps should be taken to relieve the congestion in the neighbourhood of Finsbury Park, and they shall report to the Minister thereon at the earliest practicable date.
There is, therefore, no question of tubes. It is all traffic facilities available in that. area.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I can only accept what my right hon. Friend says, but the statement I have read is taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT. All the railway company know is that the Government are contemplating promises of assistance, whether by subvention or otherwise we do not know, of what would be four different tubes to compete with this railway.

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. and learned Friend is still under a misapprehension.
All the Government wanted to be informed upon, and to have inquired into, was that steps could be taken to provide adequate travelling facilities in North and North East London. That would include tubes and any other form of railway.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am pointing out that the reference to the Committee was not the question that was before the railway company. They may have known of it or they may not. What the railway company are concerned with is the statement, made apparently in the hearing of the Minister of Transport himself, by a member of the Advisory Committee, who stated that they are contemplating making competing tubes with the railway company. I am not saying the result of that would be that they would abandon that proposal. All I am saying is that it gives to think, as the French say, and it certainly is not an extra spur to the railway company to continue its development when they are told a Government Department intends to help some people who propose to compete with them in the very ground in which they are serving. I hope I have at any rate shown one thing. This question of electrification is one of serious difficulty. I beg the House to remember that this company, like every other trader, is only too anxious to do anything which would lead to a profit, and if they come to the conclusion that they can spend those large sums of money under conditions which make it commercially possible, which give them some reasonable hope, which every trader ought to have, of carrying it on with success, there is no reason why it should not progress, and why it should not be done in the shortest possible time. On the other hand, we must be reasonable with the railway company, although we know it has no body to be killed or soul to be damned. They may be criticised very effectively, but we must be reasonable, and we must recognise that if they are really probing the problem they are doing what they can to find how best it can be done, and whether it can be done economically, and how soon it ought to be given, even if it takes two years, which seems to shock hon. Members as an unreasonably long time, to investigate such a vast
problem before it is put in active operation, that is none too long, and it is certainly no reason why they should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, which has nothing to do with the arguments which have been impressed upon the House, which does not touch the question at all, which only seeks to carry out some alterations which are required for the successful carrying out of the undertaking, and which involves a badly needed expenditure, nine-tenths of which will go in wages to the working classes.

Mr. TAYLOR: I wish to offer most strenuous opposition to the Bill. I sincerely hope that the House, as the guardian of the public interest, will refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill until such time as the London and North Eastern Railway Company have a greater regard for their duties and obligations to the public convenience. The Bill confers upon a private company wide powers of interference with the rights of individuals, with the rights of councils, and with the right of access of many of the public to certain roads and footpaths, and I think that the House ought to be very careful before it assents to a Second Reading to any Bill, even from the London and North Eastern Railway Company, to secure that in return for that right of interference it shall be a condition of the bargain that the railway company shall fulfil the obligations it undertakes with regard to the public. I want to lay before the House one or two cases which happen to be peculiar to my own constituency, but which nevertheless raise a principle which is far wider than any mere parochial interest. Clause 19 of this Bill provides for the period in which the work shall be carried out. I think the total mileage of railway embodied in this Bill is something like 14 or 15 miles, mainly in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The Bill provides that this work shall be completed by the 1st October, 1930, and in the event of it not being completed, there is a provision made in Clause 20 that certain penalties are to be applied under certain conditions. I ask the House whether they think that at the present time, with a million and a quarter unemployed in this country, it is reasonable that a railway company should ask for five years as the period of the utilisation of its powers for the construction of 14 or 15 miles of railway in two or three
different counties? I am perfectly aware of the fact that this is a usual provision in Bills of this kind. We are not living in times or circumstances when precedent can govern our actions too much. Therefore, I think we might very well insist, before this Bill goes through, that the railway companies should do something more than they have done to honour the undertaking that they gave to the late Mr. Bonar Law in November, 1922, to hurry forward works involving capital expenditure, and generally to hurry up the reconditioning of the rolling stock in order to make their contributions towards the abnormal unemployment.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) need have any fear that the London and North Eastern Railway Company will not be able to find the necessary capital for the schemes of electrification and development which have been suggested by some of my friends on this side of the House. I believe I am correct in saying that on 1st January this year the London and North Eastern Railway Company had about £20,000,000 of liquid assets, about £30,000,000 of Government securities, and nearly £7,000,000 in cash. If I am wrong, I shall be pleased to be corrected. From that point of view I would like to raise the issue whether this length of time ought to be assented to by the House, especially in view of the fact that the penalties under this Bill are not operative at all if unforeseen circumstances arise, or if the failure to complete the works is due to circumstances which the Committee could not foresee. The penalties imposed by the Bill can never exceed more than 5 per cent. of the estimated capital expenditure of the railway. Therefore those penalties are a mere flea-bite to a wealthy corporation like the London and North Eastern Company. The point I want to make, and the reason why I have raised the principle involved in these two Clauses, is that the London and North Eastern Railway Company have not carried out the obligations laid upon them in other Acts of Parliament, and particularly in an Act of Parliament passed last year which relates to the construction of three-quarters of a mile of new railway and
the widening of three-quarters of a mile of existing railway near to the City of Lincoln.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member say that there was an undertaking? Is it not to be a provision in the Act giving power?

Mr. TAYLOR: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to complete what I had in my mind, I think I shall be able to show him there was an implied obligation on the part of the company, due to the circumstances which preceded the actual passing of the Bill. For more than 20 years there has been great public agitation in the City of Lincoln with regard to level crossings. In Lincoln, as in many other places, the railways were constructed at a time when we were witnessing a change over from an old market town, merely the centre of an agricultural community, into a developing industrial community, and it is quite within reason to assume that even the wisest men could not foresee at that time the kind of problems which would be developed under the conditions as we know them to-day—the great development of motor transport and trams in the streets, municipal omnibuses conveying numbers of passengers to the outlying districts, all of which has led to a totally different set of conditions to those which existed when the railways were built. For 20 years there has been a great agitation over this question of level crossings. That agitation has not been confined to Bolshevists. The Chamber of Commerce, our great industrialists in the City of Lincoln, the Lincoln City Council, the Trades Council, indeed all sections of the people, without exception, have during the last 20 years been engaged in trying to find a solution and an easement of this problem of the crossings. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that they are probably the worst level crossings in England. They are right in the heart of the town. At one of them five railways converge. Thousands of workmen cross over those backwards and forwards from their work to their homes. There have been numerous fatalities to railway-men and private residents at that particular crossing. The point is, that the bulk of that traffic from the centre of the city is caused by the trains conveying coal and minerals to the ports of Grimsby
and Immingham, which mainly come from Nottingham and the Sheffield and Retford area. Simply by the construction of three-quarters of a mile of new line and the widening of three-quarters of a mile of the old line, the railway company could take that traffic round the city to the high level avoiding line which is already in existence and which formerly belonged to another company before the amalgamation. The company could, by making that short railway, take the whole volume of that heavy traffic round the city instead of through it, and they could also take the whole of their excursion traffic to the sea. My hon. and learned Friend, when he interrupted me, suggested that there was no obligation upon the railway company to construct this particular part of the railway.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The hon. Member used the word "undertaking," and I questioned it.

Mr. TAYLOR: I should like on that point to quote a statement by Mr. Tyldesley Jones, K. C., who appeared for the railway company before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. He said:
Dealing with the proposal to construct a railway line, six furlongs in length, commencing by a junction with the company's Lincoln and Sleaford Railway, and terminating by a junction with the company's Market Rasen branch, that on the railway that passed through Lincoln there were two very important level crossings, over which a large number of trains passed daily. To open up the Notts coalfields meant that more trains would have to pass over these level crossings on their way to Grimsby and Immingham for the purposes of the export trade, and it was most desirable that they should relieve in every way these level crossings of the burden of that additional traffic. The construction of this short line, to which there was no opposition, would have that effect.
For years prior to 1924, the Corporation of Lincoln made repeated representations to the London and North Eastern Railway Company to deal with this problem. I have been there on more than one deputation. The Chamber of Commerce have sent deputations, and I have correspondence in the House which would show my hon. and learned Friend that it was in response to public agitation and public pressure that the railway company sought these powers.
I want to appeal to the House to look at the principle involved in this Bill. We do not wish to stop the expenditure of £1,250,000, or whatever the sum is that is provided for in this Bill, but what we do ask Parliament is to insist that when the rights of private individuals are interfered with, compulsorily, when powers of compulsory interference are granted to a railway company, they should very carefully examine the attitude of that railway company in the past with regard to its pledges and promises, and if serious public inconvenience in different parts of the country has arisen because of the railway company failing to carry out works for which they have obtained Parliamentary powers, and for which there is a public demand, the House ought to hesitate before it allows a Bill like this to slip through.
I will give my hon. and learned Friend another example. Over 20 years ago, the old Great Central Railway Company, which has now been amalgamated in the London and North Eastern group, sought Parliamentary powers to construct a short loop line of 500 or 600 yards of railway from what was then the Midland Railway system, now the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, to a line of sheds and warehouses of the old Great Northern Company, connecting up with their own line. Although Parliamentary powers for the construction of that short loop line were granted over 20 years ago, they have never been exercised. What is the consequence to the people of Lincoln? It is this, that the whole of the goods traffic which comes into Lincoln for transfer from the London, Midland and Scottish system to the London and North Eastern Railway lines radiating out of Lincoln, comes into the city over, first, level crossing No. 1, right into the centre of the main street. It then goes on for 200 yards and is shunted across level crossing No. 2 where, as I previously mentioned, five lines converge. Then it is shunted back over level crossing No. 2, back through the station, over the main street, right in the heart of the city and over another level crossing, in order to get to the goods yard, which is within 400 or 500 yards of the other system, and for which 20 years ago the railway company secured Parliamentary powers to construct their loop line. I hope the House
will refuse to pass this Bill until all these complaints with regard to the attitude of the railway companies in various parts of the country can be collected, and we can get the grievances remedied before we give the railway company any new rights.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Among the many privileges of this House there is none more jealously guarded, and none which hon. Members in all parts of the House more readily exercise, than the right given by the introduction of a private Bill for the granting of further powers to examine and scrutinise very carefully the conduct of the railway companies or other body promoting the Bill in regard to the powers they have already exercised. Although I have heard from time to time a number of complaints from the other side that the grievances raised have no reference whatever to the Bill, it must never be forgotten that there is the right to raise any issue on a Bill of this kind affecting the railway company, and that that right is not only well within Parliamentary procedure but it must always be jealously safeguarded.
I have listened very attentively to the whole of the speeches to-night, and they can be summarised in this way. The Mover of the rejection of this Bill does not oppose the Bill on its merits, and not because he has any objection to the expenditure of further money, but because he objects to the inadequate facilities for the travelling public from Finsbury Park to the North of London. I know what those grievance are, because I happen to have lived there. Anyone going from the centre of London to Finsbury Park at any period between five and seven and 10.30 and 12 will find that there is no part of London so badly served. It must not be forgotten that the London and North Eastern Railway Company gave a promise last year that they would either exercise their right to construct a railway or give up their right to block the other people. I heard my right hon. Friend put up his defence for the company, and I do not think he can get over this fact, that the travelling public of North London suffer to-day because the old Great Northern Railway Company exercised their veto over the other companies. That is the truth which cannot be disputed, and there is no good in attempting to evade it.
What happened was—I know something about it—that because they found the money they exercised their right to exclude a competitor. That was the exact situation, and so the people of North London suffer to-day because of the block which the Great Northern Railway put on, but which the present London and North Eastern Railway Company has now removed. That is the exact fact so far as the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) is concerned. Whenever any other company sought power this right was always exercised. The proof is that when Members of this House of Commons through a deputation of Members of Parliament themselves tried to have something done they were met by this power which had. already been given That has now been removed. In reference to the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) who presented the views of the railway company, I wish to make it clear that if he indicated the views of the railway company it means, if it means anything, that they have definitely excluded the question of electrification.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I never said anything of the kind. I was only explaining why the powers had not been exercised up till now.

Mr. THOMAS: I am within the recollection of the House. I thought that my hon. Friend went much too far, but I do not understand that it is excluded.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Oh, no.

Mr. THOMAS: But I agree with him, and I ask the House to observe this. Whatever our views may be—and I am clearly and definitely of the opinion that in view of the tremendous gravity of the traffic problem in the north of London something has to be done—a mistake would be made by rejecting this Bill, and assuming that you were going to force another railway company to attempt to deal with this problem piecemeal. That would be the worse possible solution, and all I hope is that as a result of the Debate on this aspect of the question with regard to the traffic in the north of London, the Committee which my right hon. Friend set up will be speeded up, so that we shall be able to say not whether the London and North Eastern, or one particular company or another is to blame, but that the
Government will say that, whatever has been the position between these particular companies, the people of North London must no longer suffer as a. result of that difficulty. Therefore my hon. Friend on this particular point is justified in raising the issue, and I hope that the Debate will have the desired effect.
The next question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) who very carefully pointed out that this Bill was an infringement of a right of way. I am not going to deal with Penistone station, though my hon. Friend said it was the coldest station in England, so that it would be a most desirable place at this time of year, but I do submit that he has put a very strong point. Parliament always tries to safeguard public rights of way, but I put it to him that that is a legitimate matter to raise on a Second Reading, and that it can be dealt with in the Committee stage of the Bill, and if it is not dealt with properly in the Committee stage then this House as a whole would have the opportunity of reviewing the situation. I certainly share his view on that aspect of the question, but I feel that I must join issue with this general condemnation of the inefficiency of the railways. I observe it is made by everybody except by those who know anything about their administration.
It is a mistake to assume that the railways are run by any particular individual. The railways are run by large numbers of men in all branches, and from top to bottom they all contribute their bit, and I am not going to admit, as one who is proud of railwaymen, that they are inefficient. I am going to say that they are the best people, and that the railways are the best-managed railways in the world to-day, notwithstanding all the things that I could say about them, which would be much more damning than the things that have been already said by others. Notwithstanding that, I think, on the broad grounds, that this Bill is necessary. Not a word has been said which would prove that it is not necessary. No one for a moment suggests that the powers sought in this Bill are not necessary. But apart from that I want the railways to do as much extension and repairs at this stage as I can get them to do. This is the time when
there are large numbers of people unemployed and when we want everybody to spend money. Although this is only £1,500,000, it is £1,500,000 in the right direction. It is because I believe that if this Bill is given a Second Reading the Committee upstairs will be able to consider it and every legitimate point of detail with regard to Penistone and Lincoln, and because the Minister of Transport ought to feel that this Bill has given him an opportunity to say something to hurry up the committee who are delaying the matter—

Colonel ASHLEY: The Committee are proceeding with all possible despatch. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that you cannot hurry up a public inquiry. You must give it time to make full investigations and prepare its case. That is what they are doing.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, whose objection I was trying to champion, did not hear that they were doing all they could. Now we have been told they are doing all they could; I am sure that he will be satisfied to withdraw his objection to the Second Reading.

Captain WALLACE: I do not want to take up the time of the House by merely reiterating the case, but the name of my predecessor, Lord Ednam, has been mentioned more than once in this Debate, and the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill commented—and commented, I think, very fairly—upon the fact that upon the last two occasions when he has moved the rejection of the London and North Eastern Railway Bill, he has been supported by my predecessor, and I think it is only fair to myself, and courteous to the House, to make clear the one reason which has prevented me from accepting his very kind invitation to join in the rejection of this Bill. Upon the last two occasions when we fought the London and North Eastern Railway Company, we fought it for a perfectly definite reason, which has been explained thoroughly, and has been replied to by my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway. We objected to the passage of the London and North Eastern Railway Bill in order to secure the abrogation of that particular veto which, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has done a great
deal of harm in the past, and, owing to the efforts of Lord Ednam and my hon. Friend opposite, whose work in this particular direction is recognised by people of all parties and all classes, we did secure last year, in the last Debate on this subject, either a promise that the company would get on with the work or would abandon the veto. It has been pointed out that they have decided to abandon the veto, and I feel, in these circumstances, the efforts made in the last two Debates have been successful, and that one is no longer justified in voting for the rejection of the Bill, which may do some good in other parts of the country, without much more valid ground than, in my opinion, exists to-day.
So long as the company pursued, what may fairly be described as a dog-in-the-manger policy of not developing facilities themselves, and not allowing anybody else to do it, I believe the situation was sufficiently serious to justify people in taking a back-handed form of revenge. The fact that I intend to vote in favour of the Bill to-night will, I hope, not be taken by my two hon. Friends representing the railway company as any indication that the people of my constituency or of the adjoining ones are particularly satisfied with the efforts of the London and North Eastern Railway Company. We are not, and I feel that there is, perhaps, one more reason which has induced me to stay my hand, and that is the one mentioned in the statement by the promoters, which refers to the setting up of this Committee to inquire into the facilities of the London and North Eastern Railway generally. Personally, I cannot believe that there is very much substance in the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) to proceeding with the electrification so long as the other scheme is under discussion, because, from what I have seen of congestion in that part of London, there will be ample passengers, in my opinion, willing to travel on an electrified line, even supposing we are able to achieve what almost seems impossible, and get those three or four tubes in North-East and East London which have been discussed for so long. For that reason I intervened, simply to explain why I have not followed in my predecessor's footsteps.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. WHITELEY: I rise to object to this Bill being given a Second Reading, not because of the inefficiency of the railway men, but because of the inefficiency of the organisation of the companies who are running the railways in this country. Hon. Members have pointed out some of the difficulties they have had in regard to crossings in their area, and I rise to point out a similar situation in regard to the town of Blaydon. Some time ago—in June, 1923—the Urban District Council of Blaydon intimated to the London and North Eastern Railway Company that it was intended, in conjunction with the county council, to spend a large sum of money in reconstructing the Scotswood Road, and they asked the London and North Eastern Railway Company to improve at the same time the railway crossing entering the town of Blaydon. This correspondence went on for some time, and it took the urban district council four months to get an acknowledgment of their letters. Since that time, the railway company have intimated to the urban council that the matter will be rather too difficult, and that it will cost the urban district council a considerable amount of money to put into operation the request that the urban district council are making. They point out that much street improvement will need to be made on the south side of the railway. That has already been attended to, and the main road on the south side and the west side of the railway gates has been made sufficiently good for the heavy vehicular traffic we have at the present time on our roads. Still this railway company has not made any advance towards widening this crossing, which has been a great danger to the town of Blaydon for many years, and a greater danger to-day because of the very large amount of traffic that is going on. We protest against any railway company coming to this House to seek additional powers when they refuse to put the powers into operation of which they are already in possession.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. There is at Blaydon to-day considerable difficulty to get into the station. As a matter of fact, at some portions of the platform they have to take small
steps in order to assist passengers into carriages, and we think those are matters which ought to be dealt with by this particular company, because it does not need any additional powers from this House to enable them to overcome defects of that kind. Then I want to call attention to the station we have in Durham. Durham City station is a real cross-word puzzle. No stranger has any idea where to go. It is really the most difficult station I have ever been in in my life, and I think the London and North Eastern Railway Company ought to give some attention to the station of Durham City, because it is an important centre on the main line between King's Cross and Newcastle. Another matter is that there is only one train between King's Cross and the North that stops at Durham, and that is the 5.30 from King's Cross at night. We feel that it is of sufficient importance that one other train if not two of the other main trains ought to stop at such a centre as Durham City, in order to give passengers travelling north much! better facilities, and I hope, as a result of this discussion, this company will take note that we intend to oppose any additional powers until they themselves commence to use the powers which this House from time to time has given to them, in order to bring these improvements into operation to the general benefit of the public.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I wish to intervene for a, few moments, in order to call attention to the condition of the railway stations in the city of Leeds. I believe that for some time there has been under consideration a scheme for the building of a finer station or stations in Leeds. There is probably no large town in England which is worse served than Leeds in the way of railway stations. Leeds is a railway terminus for all purposes, both from the south and north, and there is a great opportunity to erect there a fine railway station immediately outside the large square in which the railway station is now built. It is not too much to say that the present stations, both the Great Northern station and the old North Eastern station, are two of the greatest disfigurements in the city. I believe that something has already been done or is about to be done to improve matters. I am not suggesting that
nothing has been done, for I believe that plans have already been considered. I intervene to express the hope that the work will be pushed on, and that that great city, which is the Metropolis of Yorkshire, will within a few years have a railway station which, both for travelling facilities and for architecture, will be worthy of so important a place. I hope that one way in which the company will use its increased powers in the future will be to see that Leeds receives a station suited to the needs of the city.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to say a few words from the point of view of an area which is a little more remote from London than those districts already mentioned. Year after year, I have had the privilege of representing the users of this railway, in the time of our Noble Friend Lord Banbury, who used to entertain us on this particular occasion, and since. I wish to repeat what I have said before, despite the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) has tried again to excuse the railway for inefficiency in regard to an electrification scheme. I want to take one point of my hon. Friend's defence of the railway. He said, "You do not realise how difficult it is to electrify when you have to go through these tunnels." He mentioned what is known as Hadley Tunnel, where there are only two lines of railway. Perhaps my hon. Friend forgets or does not know the history of the railway line that was made by the company just before the War. Then, because of these tunnels—seven before you get to Hatfield, then the Welwyn Tunnel and then the Welwyn Viaduct—the North-Eastern got powers to duplicate their line, but instead of duplicating it along the main line they took a relief line which goes out from Wood Green through Cuffley, through the beautiful part of Hertfordshire, and joins the main line again at Stevenage. So that it is entirely out of the picture to suggest that the railway cannot electrify because of the tunnel at Hadley.
That line through Hertfordshire was opened only this year. That is a minor point, but it leads us to consideration of the use made of this relief line. We who use this part of the Hertfordshire main line have been looking forward year after year with great hope to the opening of
this relief line, remembering the magnificent promises made by the Great Northern Railway Company when they were promoting their Bill. The War came after the line had been completed, and in a moment of patriotic ardour the company tore up the rails and sent them to France for the use of the Army. That was quite right. But after the War a long time passed before the rails were put in service again. Then we hoped that the line would give us a frequent main line service down to Hertford, and so open this new bit of railway. Not at all. Instead of that we got the most inefficient, the most ineffective and the most useless service that was ever put on any main line in the United Kingdom. It is a service which the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw has made no attempt to defend. Therefore, I come forward and make use of my privileges to say on behalf of the users of the railway that the railway should put an efficient service on that line. That really is the answer to a large number of the complaints against the company.
The complaint is not that the company deal with such a lot of traffic, but that they do not take an ordinary businesslike way of being able to deal with it by adopting a forward policy. All round the north side of London the different lines, now incorporated in the London and North Eastern Railway Company have failed to give facilities for development. As a private resident in Hertfordshire, I should be in favour of the reactionary attitude adopted by this company, for the less the company promotes facilities the more rural Hertfordshire remains, and the better it is for the private resident. But I am bound to take a different attitude on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of London, for the relief of the congestion of London. I am bound to say that unless the company adopts a more forward policy, it will not be contributing to the relief of the London housing and traffic problem. For that reason, the company ought to be condemned, again and again, until it makes a move and electrifies the line in order to improve facilities.

Colonel ASHLEY: Whether or not this Debate has been useful from the railway point of view I know not, but it certainly has been a most excellent sounding-board for hon. Members to address their con-
stituents. I am sure that next week the local newspapers will be filled with the eloquent speeches of hon. Members in defence of the interests of those whom they represent. If we followed the precedent of so many of the railway companies which have a box in the dining car labelled "Complaints," and if we had here a box in which hon. Members could put their complaints, a great deal of Parliamentary time would be saved. Let me come back to the points which have been very seriously raised in this Debate. Most hon. Members will agree that many of the points are Committee points. The serious question that has been raised related to the electrification of this railway. Let us come down for one moment to hard facts. As long as you have railways run by private enterprise you must, broadly speaking, allow the companies to run their lines in their own way. Hon. Members opposite consider it best to nationalise the railways. In that case, of course, it is possible to experiment with the nation's money, in electrification or any other innovation, remembering that the loss, if any, will fall upon the nation and not upon private enterprise.
Though personally I speak with diffidence about it, I think that the North Eastern Company are probably unwise in not venturing on electrification. But as long as you allow them to continue as a private enterprise and to bear the loss, if the innovation is not commercially successful, I do not think you can legitimately do more than express an opinion upon the matter and you certainly ought not to reject a Bill such as this on those grounds. After all, this Bill will lead to employment. No one in this Debate has questioned the excellence or the necessity of the works proposed in the Bill. If we are to have a bad winter of unemployment we should remember that £1,250,000 will be spent if the Bill is passed. Therefore hon. Members, having ventilated their very legitimate grievances, and having taker the opportunity which Parliament affords of putting forward their views, and putting them fairly strongly, I think the House would not be well advised from the point of view of employment, and railway development, in refusing a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. PALING: I wish that we had not only complaint boxes in the dining compartments of our trains, but also an
assurance that attention would be paid to the complaints put into them. That, unfortunately, is not the case. As a matter of fact, our local authorities write to the railway companies, and if I may say so with modesty, we go even further than that, and approach our local Members of Parliament to bring influence to bear on the railway companies. But in very few cases do we get any redress of our grievances. It is because no notice is taken of the complaints which are made in the ordinary manner that we take advantage of this opportunity, when the railway company wants something, and we are in a position to say, "You cannot have it unless you meet us halfway." In that way we may get something, but there is no other method of inducing a railway company to give away anything. My own local council have been engaged for almost 18 months communicating backwards and forwards with the railway company and the Ministry of Transport, and sending deputations, but nothing has resulted, and we are compelled to take the only alternative left to us by ventilating our grievances on the present occasion.
There is a portion of the urban district of Bentley, which is cut off from the rest of the district by the Doncaster and York main line upon which a tremendous amount of traffic runs. There are no means of communication between the two portions of the district, except three level crossings. The part which is cut off from the main Bentley district is growing, and workmen have to use a footway across the line, where there is nobody in attendance, no gates, nothing but the usual warning, "Beware of the trains." There have been several accidents at this point in which children were concerned. The school accommodation is not sufficient for the growing numbers in this part of the distract, and the children have to cross the line to school, and unfortunately it is in regard to children that many of these accidents have occurred. We approached the railway company, and asked them to build a footbridge. The representatives of the company had ways and means of ascertaining that we were willing to compromise on the question of supplying this footbridge, but that has not been sufficient to bring the company to heel, or induce them to meet us. We have heard
nothing about the proposal since. All we get is an answer similar to that contained in the circular sent to us to-day.
Other questions which it is understood will arise have reference to the provision of a footbridge over a level crossing at which there was a fatal accident last year. The promoters are always willing to give any facilities that may be desired for the provisions by local authorities of footbridges over their railways.
How generous of the railway company to say: "We will give you every facility for building it, if you will pay for it yourselves!" I suggest that that is not quite a fair attitude, and that the company, although they may be within their strict legal rights in refusing to talk about helping the local authority, when it is a matter of a railway crossing that has become positively dangerous like this has in the last two years, should endeavour to arrive at some compromise with the local authority and, between them, to get the footbridge built, so that it might be possible to arrest or to pre-vent altogether the accidents taking place there. The situation might have been obviated a lot had the railway company carried out a scheme that they had in their minds some years ago for a main level crossing that runs to this particular moor, Arksey. It has been contemplated for years now to build a bridge over there, but that has been held up for some reason or another, and there is no likelihood, I understand, of it being built at present. If there is no other means of crossing except by these level crossings, I suggest to the railway company that they might meet the local authority and see if they cannot arrive at something between them to arrest these accidents.
The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) devoted the best part of his speech to trying to prove that a number of the complaints raised here last year, and, I think, the year before, had been partly met. I suggest that there is an element of truth in that, for on both occasions, I believe, we have taken advantage of the opportunity offered to bring complaints, Taut out of about four definite complaints offered, one has been partially dealt with, a very small proportion. If the hon. and learned Member could prove that they will deal with these complaints, the company would have much less difficulty in getting through its Bills. As the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)
has said, we do not want to hold up the Bill, but we want the company to attend to the work it ought to do, and to give these local authorities fair play. We approached the company last year in regard to the provision of railway facilities between Doncaster and Sheffield. The request has been met to a slight extent, but there is still room for great improvement in that direction. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) brought to the notice of the company last year the question of the provision of railway facilities for the people living in the country round about Sykehouse, a district outside Doncaster which is very difficult to get at. The roads are very narrow and ill-made. It is a low-lying district, and in winter and rough weather it is liable to be flooded. Some years ago the company constructed a line through this district, and it was completed, I believe, just previous to the War commencing. It has been used for mineral traffic, and it was intended to give facilities for travelling to people in these remote districts. I believe that they went to the extent of building a skeleton station at Sykehouse. We have approached them time after time about this, but nothing more has been done, and in the circular they say, about this question:
Another question that may arise is as regards the institution of a passenger service upon a railway at present used only for mineral traffic. The possibility of giving such a service has been closely examined by the company, and the amount of passenger traffic likely to arise would not render any such service remunerative. The possible traffic is so small that even those urging the provision of a passenger service admit that there could be no necessity for it except upon two days in any week.
Supposing we agree. If memory serves me rightly there was a discussion in this House about omnibus services a few weeks ago in which the Minister of Transport took part. It was said that some of the omnibuses were trying to get the routes upon which was the profitable traffic. Evidently the railway companies want to follow the same example. I suggest that if the railway companies get the profitable routes that they should build the branch railways through the less profitable routes. At least they ought to offer some small services, even if not remunerative, to the people in the remote districts. In that way and in regard to these complaints, the hon. Gentleman
opposite who represents the railway companies here may have the advantage, when next a Bill comes before the House, of being able to prove that every complaint that has been made has been met to the fullest extent by the company that he represents.

Mr. M. J. WILSON: There have been so many complaints made against the railway companies that it would seem desirable that I should reply, at any rate, to some of these complaints. If I may say so, however, the hon. Member who spoke last gave a very good example of the general trend of the remarks that have been made throughout this Debate. He said that he had found it very difficult to get the railway companies to give anything away. Practically all the speeches which have been made this evening have been in regard to points in which the railway company has been asked to give something away. If I do not answer all these individual requests, I hope hon. Members will understand it is not from want of courtesy, but only because it is perfectly impossible for me to get a full statement of all the cases individually; therefore, I shall endeavour to reply from a general point of view. If I so reply, I shall begin by saying this: How can a company, or any railway company, at the present time afford to give anything away? Anybody who has studied the accounts of the railway companies during the last year or two years must realise that this is not the time for any railway company to start to give anything away. In order to pay the dividends, as has already been pointed out, they have had to draw upon reserves. Directors and everybody connected with the management of railways have studied every proposition put forward, not only from the point of view of the public and the shareholders, but from various other standpoints, to see whether the proposition was sound. To-night we are asked, in case after case, to do something for the benefit of somebody. The hon. and learned Gentleman who represents South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) talks about a new station for Leeds. I agree with him that the old station at Leeds is not the sort of architecture that ought to be perpetuated. But I cannot agree that this is the moment in which to spend a million or three-quarters of a million in order to build something
which would be more pleasing to the eye than the building we have already. One hon. Member opposite complained with respect to Blaydon-on-Tyne station, and also in respect to Durham station, which, he said, reminded him of a cross-word puzzle. He will have to explain that a little more fully to make it clear. Then the question of the trains at Bentley has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) and myself, as a matter of fact, have had some conversation and correspondence about this matter, and what it amounts to in point of fact is that the Bentley Urban Council wish to have a bridge built across the line. There, again, the hon. Member is asking for something different from what is the usual custom. I think I may say that in practically every other instance the local authority has in the end built the bridge at its own expense, and it is difficult for the railway company to see why a special exception should be made in the case of Bentley, and why the railway company should be given the privilege of paying towards the erection of this bridge. In regard to the passenger facilities, the railway company cannot see that there is any revenue to be obtained by running that passenger service, and under the circumstances I think I may say it is almost unreasonable to ask the railway company to start a new series of passenger services which will not bring in revenue but cause considerable loss.
There was another complaint, brought forward by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), as to the construction of an avoiding line round Lincoln. I think he suggested to the House there was an undertaking on the part of the railway company to complete that line in a reasonable time. May I deny flatly that there was any undertaking on the part of the railway company to complete that line? The railway company certainly intended, if traffic had remained as it was in the days when there was a considerable coal traffic to Immingham and Grimsby, to build that particular line. Since then, unfortunately, the export coal traffic has gone away practically to nothing, and as traffic at present stands there is no sort of case for building that line, though, I grant it would be of enormous convenience to Lincoln City.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I say that it was not conveyed to us as a deputation when
we interviewed the railway management less than three months ago that there was no case for it? They admitted that the case for it still stands. It is a question of relieving the congestion at the level crossings. Whilst it is perfectly true that the coal traffic is more limited than in normal times, the case for that avoiding line is still as great as ever it was.

Mr. WILSON: I hope I have not in any way misconstrued what was the view of the railway company. As I understand the case, the position was that there were serious delays at these level crossings. In order to avoid those delays this line was proposed, and it was hoped that when it was completed the delays would disappear, or practically disappear. What I am suggesting to the House is that, owing to the enormous reduction of traffic along that line those delays have been very much reduced at the present time, and I suggest that if this line were in fact built, the effect would only be to reduce delays in the future to something about what they are at the present time—that is if the traffic should then regain anything like its ordinary volume.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I would like to point out that it was only last summer that Parliamentary powers were taken to build it.

Mr. WILSON: If I may continue, I would like to point out that the fact that powers were taken last summer shows that the matter has been under discussion for some considerable time; and, as he himself told us, during those years the coal traffic was considerably heavier than it is at the present time, and delays were much more serious than now. Therefore, what I am saying is, in fact, an absolutely correct statement of the position of affaire. The point was that this railway company was breaking a pledge by not constructing that line. That is not correct. There is no definite obligation upon the company to make that line, and it is incorrect to say that there was With regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), he hoped that the electrification of the London area would not be excluded. It has been pointed out that the railway companies have not
sought to do anything further, and it has been said that they are still going into the matter, and are having regular meetings of the committee. If I may say so from an entirely personal point of view, I hope to see the day when we shall electrify this railway.
Of course I cannot commit the railway companies, but I should not like the House to think that this railway company has abandoned altogether the idea of electrification. I am afraid that I cannot reply in this Debate to all the smaller complaints which have been made by various hon. Members, but I hope those who have listened to the Debate will not get the impression that this railway is not properly managed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was careful to state that in his opinion the railway companies of this country were better managed than in any other country, and I assert that, notwithstanding the remarks made by various hon. Members, this railway company is well managed, and complaints are listened to and gone into thoroughly, and they are not treated with any want of respect as might be supposed from some of the remarks which have been made.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: We have listened with very great interest to the speeches of those hon. Members who have spoken in respect of the responsibilities of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, first in respect of their shareholders; secondly in respect of their commercial interests; and thirdly in regard to the duty of the railway company towards the public. I quite recognise the responsibility which a railway company has to its shareholders, but I would like to remind the House that the railway companies of this country were the only industry which during the War were guaranteed dividends to their shareholders when the rest of the traders were taking equal responsibilities without any guarantee at all.
With that preliminary word I would like to introduce to the consideration of this House a few points in respect to the trade of the north-east coast and its bearing on this railway company. Much has been said about the electrification scheme in some part of Essex and a certain section of London. I pay great respect to what has been said in regard
to that matter. Something has been said about the provision of a bridge, and I think that is a most important matter to be considered, but I want to say a word or two about trade and industry, and whether it has been helped or hindered by a standstill policy.
I do not say that there is a stand-still policy on the part of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, but I am prepared to say, and shall presently adduce evidence to prove, that, while this little Bill, and in particular Clauses 5 and 7—the one dealing with detailed improvements for which power is desired from this House, and the other dealing to a certain extent with the levying of rates—may be helpful commercially and financially in respect of some of the detailed work under Clause 5, yet, if we take a broader policy, it is a question of killing a trade, on the one hand, or giving greater facilities for haulage, crane work, and the adaptation of lines in regard to our ports of Newcastle, Sunderland and the Hartlepools. I suggest that if the London and North Eastern Railway Company would take the advice proffered to them by the Ports Facilities Committee appointed by the Committee of Shipping of the United Kingdom, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of British Industries, supplemented and supported by the re presentatives of the trade unions of this country, they would have a greater profit, and would help to relieve the vast unemployment which is resulting from the congested state of the ports and the impossibility of dealing with the traffic that is coming in. In that way they would help in a greater fashion than by some of these fiddling—I use the word deliberately—improvements which are suggested in some of the territorial provisions in Clause 5.
I am not going to say a single word in disparagement of the directors of the London and North Eastern Railway Company. They have great responsibilities. But I want again to remind them that they had certain definite, agreeable compensations at the close of the War which no other trade had, and that entails upon them responsibilities to the traders of this country. I ask them, therefore, before they finally decide on the separate territorial sections and improvements de-
tailed in Clause 5, to consider their responsibilities in regard to correct and adequate haulage facilities for Newcastle, Sunderland and the Hartlepools, and also certain helpful considerations for Grimsby, although Grimsby has done very well at the hands of the railway companies. My hon. Friend (Mr. Womersley) can, however, speak more adequately in regard to details in relation to Grimsby itself.
The second point that I want to present to the House is the question of rates. Clause 7 of the Bill states that
The railways shall, for the purposes of tolls, rates and charges, and for all other purposes whatever, form part of the undertaking of the company.
That is a very broad power, which even the Railway Charges Association could not very adequately protect. I want to remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that with respect to fish, iron ore and coal, the railway charges which obtain are causing unemployment, or, at any rate, are making it extremely difficult for others to continue, from a commercial point of view, their responsibilities to their shareholders and to the great working classes as well. I am sorry that no other Member is going to speak to-night on behalf of the railway company. I shall support the Bill, but I shall hope for such opportunities as may be permitted with respect to Amendments to the Clauses I have mentioned, and I would ask the railway company to consider the North-East Coast and its responsibilities, to consider also the opportunities which could obtain in respect to finding employment for the alterations which are required, and, secondly, the elimination of unemployment as the result of this greater efficiency of railway enterprise and conductorship, and in the result give a more economic and equitable position in respect to the trading community. If the Scottish railways and the North Eastern Railway Company in Scotland can give better facilities to fishermen than they can in certain sections of the North East coast, it is wrong and inequitable, and requires refutation and reorganisation. Therefore, I shall again reserve for myself the right to deal with that point if the North Eastern Railway
Company has not the good sense itself to do it without pressure. I support the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: There are 14 minutes left, and I want to join the chorus of complaints against the North Eastern Railway Company. We have to seize this occasion in order to ventilate local grievances. I have to-night two grievances against the company. One is the bad local train service in my own part of Durham, and the other is the bad condition of the railway stations in that part of the county. I represent a mining division. I have in my mind's eye one large division which serves several large mining districts. If I go to that district the last train leaves at 10 minutes to 8 at night. If I go to another decently large mining district, the last train leaves at a quarter to seven. Not only that, but during the whole of the day there is only a train perhaps once every two or three hours. It seems as if the managers of the company have left the local train services to be organised by some of the office boys. As a matter of fact the omnibus service between the mining villages is simply running the local train service off the rails. What one would have expected from a body of intelligent men like the North Eastern Railway directors, when the local omnibus service came into existence and was linking up village with village, is that the managers and directors would try to reorganise the local train services so as to get the traffic. As a. matter of fact they have made no move whatever. The local train service is organised to-day as it was organised 20 years ago. The time has come when someone ought to take a hand in reorganising that service and not leave it, as they are doing, to the omnibus companies.
The second complaint is with regard to the bad condition of the railway stations. I have lived nearly all my life in Durham. Before I came into this House I was a miners' agent, and I covered the county pretty widely. I do not remember a single penny of capital expenditure spent upon any of those stations I have in my mind's eye. The London and North Eastern Railway Company after the War got £15,000,000 in order to bring the plant up to date. So far they have not spent a single penny of that
in the county of Durham. We want to ventilate those grievances. A director of the North Eastern Railway Company who spoke last on the other side. referred to the speech made by my Friend with regard to Durham Railway Station. I agree with everything that the hon. Member said with regard to that station. The management of the North Eastern Railway Company have not spent a penny on it for the last 25 years. It is not a safe station. Yet the London and North Eastern Railway Company have simply left it as is was in the time of Noah. They have made no attempt to improve it, and they will not spend a penny upon it. We believe we are entitled to take this opportunity of ventilating those local grievances.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I have been unable to attend a large part of this Debate to-night, and therefore I shall not be justified in addressing the House at length. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Transport addressing the House very briefly. If I may say so without disrespect, I think it is very unbecoming on him to charge those who make honest complaints with speaking for the benefit of their constituents. If we are not here to speak about the grievances of our constituents, why are we here? The Member who promoted this Bill and the Minister of Transport said that all the points raised were Committee points. When there are Committee points to be raised on every point in the Bill, I think it becomes a Second Reading point to be dealt with as a whole. I want to ask the Minister of Transport one specific question. I have asked him before, but he did not favour me with an answer. It has reference to Clause 7 of this Bill, which empowers the London and North Eastern Railway Company to charge the same rates as they are charging on their existing undertakings. The only protection the public have against excessive rates is the Railway Rates Tribunal, under the Act of 1921. The public have not got full protection under that Act, because the appointed day has not been declared, and the Minister of Transport and his predecessor have repeatedly allowed the company and the tribunal, which comes under his jurisdiction, to postpone this appointed day.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite out of order on the present occasion. It is a matter of general railway law. The hon. Member can deal only with matters relating to this company.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I understood that, seeing that this Bill empowered the company to charge existing railway rates, we might be justified in dealing with how those rates can be kept down. On every occasion on which we make complaints about the administration of the railways, a representative of the railway company gets up and overwhelms us with sympathy. He generally says, "We agree with all that has been said, but we have no money." The hon. Member who represents the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Murrough Wilson) has already discounted and refused in advance the making of any active plans. He practically says, "We have no money to put up for making any of the improvements which have been suggested." This happens every time that a private railway Bill comes before the House, and I think it would be a very good thing if the House on one or two occasions refused to pass these Bills. That is the only way in which we can impress the railway companies that we are determined to get some concessions, and I hope that hon. Members who think with us on that matter will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. GROVES: I wish to refer to one or two points on behalf of the area I represent. I shall not vote against the Bill with any degree of pleasure, because the Bill will provide work. I would ask the railway directors to see what they can do in order to put an end to short time. I speak on behalf of my constituents in the Great Eastern Railway area, which is now part of the London and North Eastern system. I have put several proposals to the Minister of Transport. I put a question a few weeks ago with respect to excursions on the Great Eastern section, where 10 or 12 people are found standing in one carriage. There is also a scarcity of lavatory accommodation. My constituents have written to me on the matter, and many of them were unknown to me. That proves that the grievance which I had to bring forward was legitimate. The grievance has not been remedied. I
am entitled to stand up and, as courteously as I can, to ask the railway directors to do something, to realise that this is a public service and, being a public service, the public should be served as well as possible.
With regard to the suburban trains in our Great Eastern area, we find people standing 10 and 12 in a compartment going to and from their work. I hope the representatives of the railway company will consider this to be a genuine grievance, and I hope they will do all they possibly can to put an end to it. It has been going on for years. With all the powers the railway companies have,

they should apply themselves to these problems, and do their best to settle them. Take the question of carriages. They are badly in need of repair. The company needs new rolling stock, but the answer to our suggestions has been that the workmen have been put on short time. I ask the railway directors to recognise the claim we are putting forward, to reorganise the system and to give the men in my area who are employed by the company a chance to live.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 127.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Sugar Duties.)

As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the duties chargeable upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin, in pursuance of Sections four and five of The Finance Act, 1924, and the First Schedule to that Act, shall cease.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: When our proceedings were interrupted I had pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very important fact that he was limiting the powers of Parliament in relation to future Budgets because of the 10 years' period he had placed on the Preferential duties for Colonial sugar. I would press for some saving clause in this Bill to protect our interests in that respect. I had referred briefly to the Sugar Duty in last year's Budget, and had indicated that the duty had been reduced from 25s. 8d. to 11s. 8d. per cwt., or from 3¾d. to 1¼d. per 1b. That little sugar egg was given by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to the consumers of this country, at a cost approximately of £18,000,000. During the War sugar had been very heavily taxed, and in 1923 the tax was actually 14 times more than it had been in 1923. The working class consumers paid such heavy taxation during the war period that there is a strong argument for further consideration of the duty to-day. In our Debates it has somehow become a regular practice, when a concession is made in regard to one commodity, that that commodity is passed over in the Budgets of future years. I plead for the repeal of the Sugar Duty, rather than that sugar should be passed by because of the remission of duty conceded last year. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to emulate the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and to cut out of existence the duty now in operation
The members of the Labour party are against any taxation of this necessity of life. Sugar is used, not merely in tea, but in almost everything that is essential in working-class homes. The burden of the tax is greatest upon the poorest. The old age pensioner to-day pays a duty on sugar in the same proportion as the wealthiest member of the community. The percent-
age from their incomes is enormous as compared with that from the incomes of wealthier persons. We should also remember that sugar is used extensively in some of our large industries, not merely in the manufacture of sweets, biscuits and confectionery, but in one very important industry, namely, jam-making. I therefore plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the position. I hope he will look upon the matter from the point of view of equity to all classes of taxpayers and will see that the unemployed—to whose numbers another 40,000 have been added, following upon the 60,000 of last week—are not asked to take an undue share of this burden placed on one of the essentials of life.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman, who has made a very closely reasoned speech and one in which he has endeavoured to economise his demand on the time of the Committee, does not expect that I will accede to his request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] At any rate, I hope he does not, because if he does it will be my melancholy duty to undeceive him. It is not in our power to agree to this proposal. An immense remission was made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That remission was responded to by an increase in consumption, a fact from which all parties in the House may take satisfaction. We are not in a position financially to make a further change in this direction this year. There is one thing, however, about which I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The preferential arrangements which have been made and the 10 years' guarantee in no way fetter the power of Parliament to effect a reduction in the duty. It is explicitly provided that if the duty should be reduced below the amount at which we have now fixed the preference, the preference should be reduced accordingly. Of course, it might be that if Parliament were in the happy position of being able to reduce the Sugar Duty practically to nothing and at the same time to make an engagement to give a certain guarantee of stability to the Imperial sugar producer, then that would be a position they might wish to consider. Neither contingency comes within the range of practical politics at the present time. We are not in a position to reduce the Sugar Duty this year, nor in the immediate future, below
the level where it is likely to affect the preference. In these circumstances, as I understand the hon. Gentleman and his friends would like to testify their abhorrence of indirect taxes of all forms and kinds on this particular duty, I certainly will not stand between them and the most effective expression of their views.

Captain BENN: I desire to state briefly why some of us on these benches intend to support the Amendment. I have explained many times in these Debates that we are not entirely masters of our own particular preferences. I myself do not think that this year a complete abolition of the Sugar Duty is possible. I have said that to my constituents and to anyone who has raised the question with me. At the same time, we think sugar is one thing that should be selected for reduction by the Chancellor in preference to other things. We wish to express that view by going into the Lobby in support of the new Clause. Clause 7 is particularly objectionable, because it stabilises the rate of duty for 10 years, and the right hon. Gentleman has made the, to me, very disappointing announcement that there is no possibility in the next 10 years of abolishing the Sugar Duty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No

Captain BENN: Well, in the next few years. I hope, whatever the vicissitudes of Parliamentary fortune may be, there will be some Government that within some reasonable period will make an attempt to get rid of this, the worst of all taxes. For that reason, and because I believe the whole of this Clause 7 tends to rivet these taxes on the necks of our people, and deprive us of our proper liberty of making cur own fiscal arrangements, I shall support this new Clause.

Mr. J. J. GUEST: I support the new Clause, on the ground that I consider the Sugar Duty to be a vicious and a bad tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were not hoping to succeed with this Clause, but I think we are justified in hoping to succeed to-night, because of the fact that, while he may be confident in the majority that sits behind him, we are equally confident that we shall take into our lobby representatives of the vast ma-
jority of the electors of this country, and that is the opinion which ultimately prevails. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson) has dealt with a great many of the arguments on this question, but I desire to emphasise the fact that this is a tax which bears with very great hardship on the poorest of the poor. The unemployed, who are suffering so badly at the present time, will have this tax to pay. Many of the larger families with young children who eat sugar, but who are unable to work, will have to bear an undue proportion of this tax. The persons in receipt of old age pensions, and of poor law relief, will have to pay their proportion, and in many cases a very unfair and unjust proportion of this tax, out of their poverty. Although one realises that the remission of this tax would cost money. I think we are further justified in asking for its repeal, because we are conscious of the vast sums of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made over to those who are really in need. The gifts which have been made to the Super-tax payer and the wealthy Income Tax payer justify us in our position in demanding, so far as we may demand, that some concession shall be made in this Budget to the poorest of the poor people of this land. So far they have received no recognition in this Budget. Their burdens have not been lightened in the slightest degree. Rather have they been increased, and because of the equity of our case and the fact that we believe the vast majority of the electors are with us in this matter, we appeal confidently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that something may be done, and not to hold that non possumus attitude, of saying not only that nothing will be done to-night, but that nothing will be done for years to come. We hope for better things, and I can assure him, as a very humble member of our party, that if the time comes in the near future when the will of the electors outside does prevail and the vote as represented in the country to-day prevails in the Division Lobby here, I hope and trust and believe that it will be the duty of a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove this duty at the earliest possible opportunity.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 241.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harland, A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hilton, Cecil


Bennett, A. J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Drewe, C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Duckworth, John
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Blundell, F. N.
Elliott, Captain Walter E.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Elveden, Viscount
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
England, Colonel A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fermoy, Lord
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fielden, E. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bromley, J.
Finburgh, S.
Jacob, A. E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fleming, D. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Forrest, W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burman, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. Q.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Campbell, E. T.
Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William


Cassels, J. D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, L.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gee, Captain R.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lumley, L. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chapman, Sir S.
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Charleton, H. C.
Grant, J. A.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gretton, Colonel John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.


Compton, Joseph
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.


Cope, Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Merriman, F. B.


Couper, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Storry Deans, R.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Moles, Thomas




Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.



Remer, J. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rentoul, G. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Varley, Frank B.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waddington, R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Rye, F. G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Murchison, C. K.
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandon, Lord
Watts, Dr. T.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis




Oakley, T.
Sexton, James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)



Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pennefather, Sir John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.
Wise, Sir Frederic


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Wolmer, Viscount


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Womersley, W. J.


Perring, William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Peto Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Preston, William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Mr. Murrough Wilson


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crook, C. W.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Dennison, R.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. R. Morrison and Mr. Paling.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)




Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Division No. 163.]
AYES.
[11.26 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Roes, Sir Beddoe
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Warne.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Drewe, C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Cassels, J. D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Elliott, Captain Walter E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Mai. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermoy, Lord


Atkinson, C.
Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Fielden, E. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Finburgh, S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Fleming, D. p.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bennett, A. J.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bantinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gates, Percy


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cooper, A. Duff
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gee, Captain R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Goft, Sir Park


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gower, Sir Robert


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grace, John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Briggs, J. Harold
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)




Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Harland, A.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Haslam, Henry C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hawke, John Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Shepperson, E. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hilton, Cecil
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Murchison, C. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Storry Deans, R.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Neville, R. J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Holt, Captain H. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Tompleton, W. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pennefather, Sir John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jacob, A. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Looker, Herbert William
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, L.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Macquisten, F. A.
Rye, F. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Salmon, Major I.
Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Frederick Thompson.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make as to how far he would like to go to-night?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand, after a good many discussions which have taken place, that the Liberal party are very anxious that the Debate to-morrow shall begin on the proposal that was made to exempt agricultural land from the scope of the increased Death Duties—that that should be the first feature to-morrow, and that was really understood in the conversation which took place across the Table at Question time. Then there is a wish on their part to discuss, I believe, two other new Clauses. The first deals with the question of the Income Tax allowance to a widowed mother, and the second with the exemption of agricultural shows from the scope of the Entertainments Duty. This is subject to these Clauses being discussed after the main Debate has taken place on the
points of substance contained in the Clause dealing with the taxation of agricultural land. It is not thought that, after the Debate on agricultural land has taken place these two Clauses will take very long, and we expect to finish the new Clauses by a quarter past eight o'clock. After that we shall get to the consideration of the First Schedule, which we hope will be concluded at a reasonable hour. As far as to-night is concerned there would be a disposition to conclude the Debate after taking certain test questions upon which the Committee wishes to express an opinion, and we should not sit beyond 12.15

Mr. SNOWDEN: Then I understand that, after the progress we may have made during the next three-quarters of an hour, the right hon. Gentleman will report Progress about 12.15.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We wish to make progress with the new Clauses, in order to
clear the way for the discussion on agricultural properties and the increased Death Duties to-morrow. Those are the controversial issues which have been challenged, and we shall give every facility for the Opposition to state their views.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Shall I have an opportunity of discussing the New Clause standing in my name, dealing with the widows and orphans?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, I cannot give any guarantee on that point, but I will discuss it with my hon. Friend.

Captain BENN: We have put down a number of proposals in the form of New Clauses, and we were looking forward to doing a public service by moving them tonight. I am aware that this would take a long time. We propose, however, to make a sacrifice, and we shall not move those New Clauses out of a desire not to keep the House sitting too long, providing that the sacrifice is reciprocal and that we are given an opportunity of moving certain New Clauses after the discussion on the Agricultural Land Clause. In view of the importance of the Silk Duties, we shall require an opportunity to press forward our objections to that tax.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I have down on the Order Paper a very important New Clause providing for a lower rate of tax on companies' profits not distributed to shareholders but which are used for the development of the concerns. I recognise the great strain upon the House by the necessity of sitting late night after night, and I shall be glad to fall in with the suggestion not to deal with that Clause to-night if I am afforded an opportunity of dealing with it on the Report stage.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are other New Clauses on the Paper dealing with the same subject.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite clear, after what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has said, that the question whether there is to be a late sitting to-night or not rests entirely with hon. Members opposite. There are three or four pages of Amendments in the names of hon. Members on that side, and, therefore, if they make the same concession that has been made by us and by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, then I think
we might follow the course the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned; but, if hon. Members opposite will not fall in with that, it is clear that we are in for another very long sitting.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Is all the sacrifice of time to be made by us?

The CHAIRMAN: This discussion is really rather irregular. There is no Question before the Committee. The suggestion was thrown out, but it cannot become a Debate.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, there are on the Paper to-night proposals which, if they were discussed, would, without any obstruction, occupy not merely a night but two or three nights. There is no doubt about that. I think it is the wish of the Committee that we should endeavour to keep our business within a reasonable length, and select particular issues upon which controversy is least. I quite agree that there are several Amendments of importance which have been put down by Members on this side of the Committee, and I think one or two of these could be disposed of in the short time that remains, agreeably with other proposals from the other side. The proposed new Clause to which reference has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) is one to which I think great importance is attached on the other side of the Committee, and I understand that a proposal has been made by the Opposition that there should be a careful discussion upon it during the Report stage. That covers my hon. and learned Friend's proposition. I feel that if we go forward in the general mood in which the Committee is at the present time, we shall dispose of the principal points in the business before a quarter past 12, and it is only in the event of that failing that we shall be forced to consider the other alternative. I quite agree that, if all the Amendments on one side of the Committee are to be proposed, you can-not demand that none should be proposed from the other side. Very few Amendments have been put forward from this side of the Committee, and there are two or three which I think raise no great controversial issues, and which might be disposed of between now and the time when we should like to bring our proceedings to a close.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision to allow deductions in respect of inherently wasting assets.)

For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional Commissioners claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, and concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits, the additional Commissioners in assessing those profits and gains shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable.

For the purpose of this section the term "inherently wasting assets" means assets which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits. Provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.—[Mr. Basil Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the second of the two proposed new Clauses standing in my name on the Paper. In view of what has just been said, I do not propose to move the first —(Table water duties of excise)—but the Clause which I am now moving deals with a matter of vastly greater importance. It needs, however, but a very short explanation to-night, in view of the fact that it has been before the House, in one form or another, in connection with almost every Finance Bill for the last 15 years, and every Chancellor of the Exchequer during that period, or his representative, has given sympathetic replies, and indeed, promises of consideration at the earliest possible moment. Therefore it is not necessary for me, particularly in view of the fact that I moved a Clause in these identical terms in 1923, which was moved again last year by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall), to do more than refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT, volume 165, column 1294, and fol-
lowing columns, so far as in my humble capacity I was able to do it, I put the whole argument for relief from taxation of that part of the profits of an undertaking dealt with in this Amendment. An almost similar Clause, but somewhat more restricted, was moved in 1912 by Sir Ernest Pollock, now Master of the Rolls. All the points about companies registering abroad and the Chancellor losing revenue were fully dealt with on that occasion. All I have to do to-night is to deal with one aspect, which is, I think, a new point and one of urgent necessity under present circumstances. What are these wasting assets? Mine shafts, obsolescent machinery and things of that kind? They all belong to productive industry, and it is very important to see that we carry out what is stated in the original Income Tax Act of 1842 to be the basis of the tax—"Annual Profits or Gains accruing to any person from any Profession, Trade or Employment."
In view of the present situation and the unfavourable prospect for nearly all our industries, there are specially urgent reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept this Clause now, and net only promise, as all Chancellors have done in the past, to consider the matter. I want him to recognise the fact that the Royal Commission of Income Tax, which sat in 1919, and reported in 1920, found in favour of the principle enshrined in this Clause. If he cannot accept it, I want him, either to appoint a Parliamentary Committee, or to examine the subject in his own Department between now and the next Finance Bill, so that when he is able to give any further relief from income tax he should not give it like the relief granted this year of 6d. in the £ which, like the rain, "falls on the just and the unjust," but should make it bear directly on the great problem of unemployment, and give relief to productive industries from what is really an unfair method of assessment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that three successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, in three successive years, have promised that faithful and sympathetic consideration shall be given to the serious case which he has made, and which he makes not only on his own behalf but in repre-
sentation from an important body of public opinion in this country. But none of these Chancellors of the Exchequer survived to carry out their promise. In the last four years there have been six Chancellors of the Exchequer who sat in the chair that I now occupy, and I am sure that the Committee will feel that anything of that kind ought now to come to an end, and that we ought to have a continuity. On that basis I can promise my hon. Friend that there shall be the most careful watching of the serious case which he has put forward with a view of seeing whether, if there were a possibility in any future years of giving a further relief of Income Tax, it could be applied in the way suggested.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Belief to taxpayers summoned to appear with securities before inspector of taxes.)

"Where a taxpayer or his agent has delivered to the inspector of taxes a list of the securities owned by him and the income arising therefrom receivable by him he shall not be summoned by such inspector of taxes to appear in person or to forward such securities as may have been required of him to the office of the inspector unless the consent of the General Commissioners has previously been obtained.—[Sir Henry Buckingham.]

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
I formally move this Clause. It deals with a matter of urgent public importance, but in view of the reply which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to give, I beg to reserve the right to develop my argument after listening to what the Financial Secretary says.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) refers to the inconvenience which has been caused to certain persons claiming repayment of Income Tax by receiving summonses to call on the inspectors with documents to substantiate their claims. The reason for this practice has been recently established, as, unfortunately, under the old method of repaying Income Tax, dividend warrants have been abused by certain criminal and skilful forgers, and it was necessary to prevent the State repaying Income Tax which it
had never received by making sure that all these cases were bona fide. It is true that certain people on whose bona fides there is no doubt have been inconvenienced by this system, and we propose in future to make it clear that the necessity for further evidence beyond the production of dividend warrants shall apply only in the case of people with no settled residence. We propose in these cases in future to make it clear that it is not necessary for the claimant to call in person, or to be put to the inconvenience of trying to get documents for the substantiation of his claim not in his possession, provided that he will put the inspector in touch with his banker or his solicitor who may have the custody of the stock or share warrant or title deeds which show the possession of the income for which repayment is claimed. And in the other case, where these documents are not in the possession of the bank or solicitor but held by trustees, it will be sufficient if the names of the trustees are sent, and if these trustees are people of settled abode who can be approached, with the view of getting an unimpeachable certificate as to the existence of the warrant.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I thank the Financial Secretary for the statement he has made, and it appears to me as an experimental system that what is suggested is satisfactory and should allay the very grave feeling concerning this bureaucratic scandal which has exercised the minds of taxpayers throughout the country. Therefore I beg to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet move the next new Clause?

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: Yes. I am frequently referred to as "the hon. Baronet." I regret to say that I do not hold that very dignified position.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for Income Tax on deferred annuities premiums.)

In addition to the reliefs granted under Section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1918, in respect of premiums paid on an insurance policy an allowance shall also be made in respect of premiums paid on policies to secure a deferred annuity whether such policies have been effected before or after
the passing of this Act, provided always that no such allowance shall in any case exceed such a sum as represents the earned income allowance granted to the taxpayer.—[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause of considerable importance, and it would be unreasonable to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a definite promise to carry it through to-night. In the first place, it is impossible to say what the cost of my proposal would be. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Clause is the outcome of correspondence I have had with him on account of a large class of people whose only asset is their intellectual capacities, and who have no opportunity of building up a business goodwill. The suggestion is that for these people it would be only right that they should get the benefit of allowances upon any premiums which they pay in respect of deferred annuities. The same scheme has been put before the Minister of Health, as -it appeared to me that this might possibly be a method of filling the gap to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in introducing the Pensions Bill where people cannot acquire pensions under the new scheme in consequence of not being subscribers to the National Health Insurance. I should be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me an assurance that this matter will receive due consideration.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give consideration to this matter, which is of very great public interest, between now and the Report stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to make this concession at the present time. The situation is what it was a year ago. The facilities for obtaining remissions in regard to insurance policies have been restricted by Parliament because it was found that they were being to some extent abused and the revenue was being exposed to considerable loss. I should like this matter to be considered in relation to changes made by this Budget put forward to help the professional man of small means, and even
the big professional man who desires to build up an insurance policy, out of his income, for his wife and children in the event of his death. That has been the strength of the case of my two hon. Friends who support this Clause. The whole aspect of this Budget is to give concessions in favour of those men. The discrimination in favour of earned income as against invested income and the discrimination in favour of Super-tax as against Death Duties on estates passing at death tend to mitigate the position. While I promise to consider the question raised by the Clause, I cannot promise to deal with it in the present state of affairs.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

12 M.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: In view of the New Clause promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the exemption of agricultural property, I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee by moving the Clause which I have put on the Paper— (Amendment as to value of property for purposes of estate duty).

The CHAIRMAN: Does that apply to the other Clauses which stand on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald)— (Exemption of agricultural shows from entertainments duty in certain cases)—I understand that in order to carry out the agreement that has been arrived at with the hon. Member and his friends, I am not to call it now, and that a fresh Clause is to be put down which will come up to-morrow.

CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to allowance for maintenance, repairs, etc)

The following paragraph shall he substituted for paragraph (2) of Rule 8 of No. V. in Schedule A (which grants relief in certain cases in respect of the cost of maintenance, repairs, etc.):—
(2) For the purposes of this Rule the term "maintenance" shall include the replacement of farm-houses, farm build-
ings, cottages, fences, and other works, and the term "replacement" shall include replacement according to an improved standard necessary, to meet modern requirements or to comply with any Act of Parliament or any regulations or bye-laws of a local authority. Provided that such replacement shall only be included in the term "maintenance" where the existing rent is not raised by reason of the replacement.—[Major Steel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major STEEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This question was raised on the Finance Bill of 1921 and again last year. The whole object of the Amendment is to try to get similar rules for all collectors of taxes as to what may and what may not be included in a claim for allowance in respect of the maintenance of farms and farm buildings. At present there is no general complaint against the large majority of collectors of taxes but there is a certain number of collectors who will not allow to be included certain works of replacement which those for whom I speak think ought to be included. In all these matters there is no question of any increase in rent. That does not arise. The whole question is what is replacement and what may be included in the claim under the heading "replacement." We have always maintained that in repairing a farm cottage it is not only necessary to replace a rotten roof for instance by a new roof of similar type, but that it is necessary in repairing the cottage to bring it up to the higher standard which is required by the higher standard of living to which people are accustomed in these days, and that the Government ought to give every encouragement to owners of cottages on all possible occasions to improve their cottages. There is not the slightest doubt that the rural cottages stand in need of improvement just as much as the houses in the towns. This question was raised last year, and the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury treated it very sympathetically, and, although he did not accept the Amendment moved at that time, he himself moved an Amendment which I believe he intended to carry out the object which we had in view. It has not carried out that object in all cases. A case came to my notice the other day. It was a case of the owner of a cottage for
which no rent was paid. The occupant of the cottage had to go to the nearest river to draw his water. When the cottage was being repaired the owner provided a new water supply at a cost of £164, and, in addition, spent a sum of £39 in installing a new water closet and the necessary drainage. The expenditure on the water supply and the closet was not allowed by the collector of taxes to be included in the maintenance claim. I am certain that the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury honestly believed that such a case would be covered by his Amendment. Unfortunately it was not, and that is the reason why we raise the question again this year.

Mr. GUINNESS: We cannot accept this Amendment. It would give exemption to certain selected forms of expenditure, and it would be impossible to limit the exemption to this particular instance. I do not see how you could prevent great advantage being taken of such an Amendment by people who are well-to-do and do not need such a concession. Provision against the raising of rent is not entirely effective. There is nothing to prevent a landlord from getting an enhanced price for his property and the purchaser raising the rents on account of improvements which had been paid for out of remitted Income Tax on this particular form of selected expenditure.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The following New Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name ofSir ARTHUR CHURCHMAN:

(Relief in respect of savings of earned income.)

Notwithstanding anything in the Income Tax of 1918 it is hereby provided that where the income does not exceed two thousand five hundred pounds, and any part of that income is earned income, and where the claimant proves that he has made bona fide investments during any year, he shall be entitled hereafter to relief from tax in respect of the interest accruing from all investments either in Government securities or in companies registered under the Public Companies Act during the five years following each such investment.

Sir A. CHURCHMAN: In view of what has been said about the desire to get to bed early, I do not propose to move this Clause, but in view of its importance and value, and the fact that thrift is dear to
the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope he will consider it before the Report stage.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40, Schedule D, Miscellaneous Rules.)

Rule 2 of the Miscellaneous Rules applicable to Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be applied as though at the end thereof there were added the following paragraphs:—
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing provision a person whose ordinary place of residence and domicile lies, or whose business, occupation, or profession is carried on, outside the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland shall not be chargeable with tax on any sum in excess of the amount of his annual expenditure in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland, even though he may have been therein for periods exceeding six months of the year of assessment;
(3) The provisions of paragraph (2) shall also apply to a person ordinarily resident and domiciled abroad who retains a residence in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland, and whose wife resides therein for reasons of health or for the purpose of the education of his children.—[Mr. Macquisten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I desire to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the way of obtaining some more revenue, not at our expense, but from residents in this country whose incomes are earned abroad. I think it was in 1911 that the present arrangements came into force regarding such people. A person who earns his whole income abroad may be a native of this country who left here to seek his fortune and he may desire to return here for a period of time. He may, for example, be earning his income in the tropics, and if he is a married man with young children he may desire them to be brought up in his own country, and with this object he buys or rents a house and has a residence here. If he chooses to desert his wife for a whole year he is not liable for Income Tax on the income he makes abroad, but only on the money remitted to him here. If he returns home for a single day to the bosom of his family he is, however, charged Income Tax on his whole income, whether it is earned in the tropics or anywhere else. Of course, if we could exact this tax it would help us, and I would be only
too pleased, but we cannot do so. The result of the present system is that these gentlemen simply do not come home here to make a residence, and you find their wives living in Switzerland or elsewhere on the Continent, or else remaining in the tropics. In many cases the younger men who are earning incomes abroad do not marry at all, knowing that if they do so, and try to make a home here, they will be made liable to tax on their whole earnings, and it must be remembered that people working in the tropics expect to make a competence in a few years, because a man's health will not stand prolonged residence there.
The result of this penal legislation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses a great deal of money. I am not speaking of the hardship to the individual though such hardship is involved, but we have no right to tax these people in this way. We cannot tax Australians any more than Americans, and it was as the result of an attempt to tax the Colonies that we lost America, and it seems a breach of hospitality when such people as I have described come here for a period, that they should be made liable for the maximum taxation if they make residence here for their families. I suppose it is on the principle of a legal maxim, Ubi uxor, ibi domus, or "A man's home is where his wife is," that they are taxed to the full, but it is a foolish thing to do in this instance, because we are keeping out many people who might otherwise come here and contribute substantially to our taxes. I know one case of a man who was going to settle in this country and buy one of those big houses which are now left untenanted by our own people. His spending of money would have been of great value in the district where he proposed to settle, but on taking legal advice he found he would be liable for the maximum Income Tax and Super-tax here, and he was already liable to the maximum taxation across the water. Instead of an income, he was going to have a substantial deficit after paying the double taxation, and so he did not come. My proposal is that the man should be taxed only on the money he brings here and spends here, and in that way we shall get more money for the revenue, because more such people will then make residences here. I have in mind another case of a man who sent me a letter
stating all the circumstances. He is a Scotsman.

Mr. B. SMITH: Did he put a stamp on it?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: He was in Scotland at the time. He intended to settle his wife and family here while he continued his occupation as a rubber planter abroad. I may say here that this system hits the rubber planters very hard and a great many of them are of Scottish extraction. When my informant found he was going to be taxed here on the whole income from his rubber estate, he said this was an inhospitable country and abandoned his plan. It is folly to tax people in this way and keep them out of the country when our rural districts would be all the better if we had them living in those districts and spending money there. But there is no moral right whatever to exact taxation when we have done nothing to create income which has been made abroad. I say we should encourage as many people as possible to come to this country and get as much as possible out of them when they are here, but we should not put our hands in their tills in other countries, when we have done nothing for it. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider whether something cannot be done to meet this point.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot introduce anything into the Finance Bill, but the question as to what extent it is possible, and to what extent it is desirable, to claim taxes from a person, a portion of whose property lies outside the jurisdiction of this country, is one which should be carefully considered from the point of view of the greatest advantage to the Revenue and of the greatest advantage to this country. The proposal which my hon. and learned Friend has put down could, I think, be subjected to a very considerable measure of, I will not say destructive, but demolishing treatment. For instance, it would, I think, be possible for a millionaire in this country to establish a claim in respect of some company which he managed abroad as being his principal business, and so escape altogether taxation in this country. That, I am sure, is not what my hon. and learned Friend wants, but I do not wish to embark upon an argument with him. I do say this is
one of the many matters connected with the Income Tax which should certainly be examined, and examined with a new eye to see whether some greater advantage could not be gained.

Colonel GRANT MORDEN: There are a great many Canadians and Australians who come over to this country, and who would like to maintain a residence here the year round. They cannot do it. They can remain here one day under six months, and then go back abroad again. There are Americans who do the same thing. There are hundreds of very rich Americans and very rich people from our own Dominions who would come and spend their money in this country, and I submit this Clause is a most valuable one. I do not at all agree with my right hon. Friend that anyone in this country could camouflage residence abroad by becoming a director of a company, and saying his income was derived overseas, because this would only apply to those resident in our overseas Dominions or in foreign countries, and I cannot see any reason at all why regulations cannot be devised so as to render impossible such a suggestion as the right hon. Member makes.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause standing in the names of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) and other hon. Members—(Protection of taxpayers summarily proceeded against)—I think should be raised in Committee of Supply on a definite Vote.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 18, s. 3 (2).)

Section three, Sub-section (2), of the Finance Act, 1920, shall have effect as if for the words "nineteen hundred and twenty," in line three, "nineteen hundred and twenty-five" were substituted, and as if for the words "three pounds twelve shillings and sixpence," in lines six and seven, "two pounds" were substituted.—[Mr. Macquisten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, I think, will assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recover more duty. The present tax upon
whisky is 72s. 6d. a gallon, which absolutely prohibits a great many decent, respectable people with small incomes from having what they had in the past, namely, some spirits. Even under doctor's orders they cannot get it, because they cannot afford it. It is a very great hardship, and it is felt very keenly. To a well-off man it may only mean £50 a year more, but to the man with from £200 to £300 a year who desires his one whisky a day, this is prohibition by taxation, is class legislation, and is a very unfair tax to put upon these people. It was only intended as a War tax. Revenue is being lost by it, and I am certain if the tax were reduced sales would go up to such a degree that the loss of revenue would be replaced. I am sorry to say many people have taken to more noxious compounds, and I believe there is a good deal of illicit distillation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] We have heard of a good deal in different towns. My hon. Friend comes from one where there were nine cases in three weeks.
The consumption of whisky has been decreased by one-half. A retired officer of the Inland Revenue told me that on account of the advantage to his health, he always had to have a little spirits at bedtime, but now it was so costly that he had very seriously cut down his consumption of what was, to him, a necessity. The unfortunate thing is that there is not much support for this Clause to be got from the distillers, because they find it is much better that the duty should be high in this country, as they get a very much larger price by exporting spirits. The chairman of Messrs. Alexander Walker boasted, about two years ago, that since prohibition was introduced in the United States, his firm was forging ahead in America, or words to that effect. I think it is very hard that prohibition should be imposed upon the working-class by a backdoor in this fashion by taxation, and I think it is a cause of industrial unrest. As I have said before, if members of the Carlton, Reform, and Constitutional Clubs had the same difficulties as the working men in buying refreshment, they would all be Bolshevists in about six months.
I do not think my proposal, if adopted, would have the least effect on the sobriety of people. The consumption of whisky has never exceeded one gallon a head of the population, and it is now down to half-a-
gallon. It was intended as a medicine, and should be used as a medicine, as a good many Members of this House so use it. I, therefore, want to enter my protest against using this duty, not for Revenue purposes, but entirely for the purpose of prohibition, and I hope another year this will be discontinued.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not fully considered the effect of his proposed Amendment and its results to the Exchequer—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Amendment only applies to spirits produced in this country.

Mr. GUINNESS: The result of any alteration of the taxation would mean a considerable transfer of the consumption of foreign spirits to home-made spirits, and we should, on a full year, lose revenue to the extent of £14,000,000. The hon. Member will, therefore, see that it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend opposite in making a protest against the retention of such a very high duty. I believe a bottle of whisky, 50 per cent. under proof, now costs 12s. 6d. Of this, 8s. 5½d. represents the duty. Once there might have been a smile when one raised a point of the sort, but one may fairly draw attention to the fact that spirits are as much used medicinally as in any other way. Those who say otherwise speak without knowledge of the actual facts, for during the late influenza epidemic, if there had been more within the reach of the poorer people, a good deal of unnecessary sickness might have been prevented. I am sorry that the time does not give me a proper opportunity of speaking at length upon this matter, and also that it precludes me from moving an Amendment dealing with the duty on beer. But the remission of these two duties is long overdue.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance of deduction for wear and tear in case of profits of professions, etc., and of profits arising from occupation of land.)

Rules 6 and 7 of Cases I and II of Schedule D (which provides in connection with the charge to Income Tax under that
Schedule of the profits or gains of a trade for the allowance of deductions in respect of the wear and tear of machinery and plant and in respect of expenses incurred in. replacing obsolete machinery or plant) shall apply as if references in those rules to the profits or gains of a trade included references to the profits or gains, whether assessable under Schedule D or otherwise, of a profession, employment, vocation, or office, and, where they are ascertained otherwise than by reference to assessable value, to the profits or gains arising from the occupation of lands, including woodland, and in relation to profits or gains assessable under some schedule other than Schedule D as If the provisions of the said rules were applicable to the tax under that other schedule.

Provided that—

(i) Where the profits or gains are not assessed under Schedule D the powers of the additional Commissioners, under paragraph (4) of the said Rule 6, may be exercised by the General Commissioners; and
(ii) in the case of a claim for the allowance of a deduction for wear and tear in any year from the profits or gains arising to any person from the occupation of lands, including woodlands, the appropriate deduction for wear and tear shall, for the purposes of paragraph (6) of the said Rule 6, be deemed to have been allowed for any previous year for which profits or gains arising to that person from the occupation of lands, including woodlands, were determined by reference to assessable value.—[Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]

Brought up, and read a First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. and gallant Member has put down this New Clause after consultation with the Treasury, and it carries out the recommendations of the Royal Commission and extends the Income Tax allowance for wear and tear to plant and machinery, an allowance which has long been enjoyed by traders, to professional people and employés who in the opinion of the Royal Commission and the Government are fairly entitled to the same advantage. The Government are glad to accept the New Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision to allow deductions in respect of shaft sinking.)

In estimating the profits or gains of tin, copper, coal, mundic, or other mines charge-
able to Income Tax there shall be allowed to be deducted as expenses such part of any amount expended in shaft sinking as the Commissioners having jurisdiction in the matter may think just and reasonable.— [Captain Moreing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain MOREING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a matter of vast importance to the mining industry of this country, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to indicate—[Interruption.]

Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order. I understood that an agreement was arrived at that these Amendments would not be moved to-night in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of getting home by train. That agreement has been broken; the last train has gone, and I think we should be within our rights if we continued the discussion all night. You make an agreement and then do not carry it out.

The CHAIRMAN: The question of an agreement is not a point of Order. That it not a matter which can be enforced by the Chair. It depends on Members of the Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps I can allay any feelings of irritation there might be on this matter. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have compressed an enormous number of proposals into a short time, and I do not think any controversial matter is going to be dealt with to-night. In a few minutes I think we shall reach the end of our proceedings, although I do feel some regret that the hour of 12.15 or 12.30 has been passed. At the same time I hope hon. Members will be lenient judges on this matter. I am sure everyone is trying to do his best to get through as quickly as possible. I am afraid we cannot undertake anything in the connection indicated by this new Clause this year. It is a matter which, like that of wasting assets, should be considered as part of a general proposition.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not propose to move my new Clause to amend 10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 32, s. 32, but in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I hope I shall have an opportunity on Report stage of
moving it. In order that hon. Members opposite may catch their trains I do not move the new Clause now.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 8 & 9 Geo. V, c. 15, Schedule 1.)

The following rule shall be substituted for Rule 10 of all the rules for Schedules A, B, C, D, and E in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918:—
Nothing in these rules shall render a non-resident person chargeable in the name of a broker or agent in respect of profits or gains arising from sales or transactions carried out through such broker or agent, provided that the broker or agent be carrying on a bona fide broker's or general commission agent's business receiving adequate commission not less than the customary remuneration in that class of business and is not an agent whose only agency or brokerage business is the regular agency or representation in the United Kingdom of such non-resident person.—[Mr. Dennis Herbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is only necessary for me to formally move this new Clause in order to express the hope that a question of immense importance to the City of London, and which is supported I believe by Members of all parties in this House, will receive the sympathetic attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Report stage. It is a matter which has been discussed with the Revenue officials, and I believe they and those who are supporting the proposal are at one in the particular object they desire to achieve. The only question at issue is really the form of words to be used. This question of the taxation of non-residents through the agency of the United Kingdom has frightened away a lot of the entrepot trade of the City of London. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me that he will consider some amended form of the proposal before the Report stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL: These are complicated matters which have often been discussed in this House. I find that there is a strong opinion in favour of the general course recommended by the hon. Member and by the others, and I find on examining the question at the Treasury that there is a great feeling that the present state of the law is practically
unenforceable and that there would be no great loss to the Revenue if this concession was made. It would not affect the Estimates to any appreciable extent. In these circumstances while I can give no undertaking to-night I will promise to have the matter brought up in one form or another on Report stage with a view of arriving at the sense of the House on a matter in regard to which I know feelings will be curiously divided.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The following New Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RAWLINSON:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Easter offerings from Income Tax.)

Easter offerings voluntarily paid to ministers of religion shall be exempt from Income Tax.

Sir H. SLESSER: I desire to move the New Clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) providing for the exemption of Easter offerings from Income Tax.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is not able to move a New Clause if his name is not down to it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I also came to an agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in regard to this New Clause. Will it be in order for me to move it now?

The CHAIRMAN: No. I am afraid not. It is not out of order for the hon. Member to bring it up to-morrow.

Captain BENN: But I understod that to-morrow we are to consider the New Clauses indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Clauses which we on these benches are foregoing to-night.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for agreement. I was only stating what the Order of the House was.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that a Member cannot move a New Clause unless his name is attached to it? Is that your ruling?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is so, but a New Clause can be moved at the end of the other Clauses. The hon. Member cannot, as it were, adopt another hon. Member's Clause, but in case it is not
moved and disposed of at the time when it first appears on the Paper, he car himself put it on the Paper and it can be taken at the end of the other Clauses on the Paper.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
There was a distinct understanding that only the Clauses indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be taken to-morrow.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope it will not be necessary for the hon. and gallant Member to persist in his Motion. We shall regard it as an honourable undertaking to do everything in our power to see that the arrangement is kept, and at the same time do no injustice to those who sit behind us on these benches. At any rate, we shall do our best to in regard to the agreement made. I do not think this particular matter can receive adequate attention at this time of night. It has often been discussed in the House, and as it is not possible to discuss it now, I am sure some arrangement can be made for it to receive attention on the Report stage.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before you report Progress, may I raise the question as to a Clause in the name of one of my colleagues. He intended to move it to-night. We want to safeguard our right to take it to-morrow if we can. It seems to me that the bargain has been broken that we should go home at half-past twelve o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there is something in the point the hon. Member raises. There is the Report stage, which will give us a little more time than we have this evening, when the point can be raised.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We came to a definite agreement that we should go home at half-past twelve, and accordingly our colleagues left. I am not going to be bound by any agreement to-morrow at all. I shall reserve my right to break any agreement made.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member feels himself in a position of strength, he might show some chivalry.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That I hoped you would have done to-night. We have no sign of it from you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! "]

The CHAIRMAN: At the end of the Report stage, I shall call Mr. Speaker's attention to certain points or divergencies and points of agreement and of substance that are left at the end of the Committee stage, and in his judgment he may allow things to go forward on Report.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Shall we be at liberty to bring forward this New Clause which you are now departing from because the name is not attached?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to put down a Clause originally in the name of another Member not here to move it. It may be put down, and come at the end of the New Clauses.

Captain BENN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion. In doing so I wish to represent that in considering the matters brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker you will leave in hand the Clauses not moved from the Liberal benches.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Collectors of taxes.)

Collectors of taxes, whether appointed by the General Commissioners of Taxes or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, shall hold office during the will and pleasure of the appointing authority.—[Mr. Samuel Roberts.]

Brought up and Read the First time.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be Read a Second time."
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to accept this Clause? If so, I shall only formally move.

Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot accept this Clause.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Then I would like to say a few sentences.

Captain BENN: No, no!

Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has taken hours and hours but the supporters of the Government on the back benches have taken up practically no time. When an Amendment is proposed, he wants to drive us out. What I want to say about this Clause is that these people are appointed year by
year, and these appointments come to an end each year. They ask definitely to be placed in the same position as other civil servants. The answer made last year was, I believe, that it was considered by the Royal Commission for Income Tax, and the Treasury desired to have them all appointed under the Inland Revenue. That has not been done. I do not think I need argue this case any longer. Except that when I look at the Division lists of last year— the Clause is in the same form as it was put down last year—the Prime Minister and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury supported it. I do not think they can turn round now and vote against it.

Mr. GUINNESS: In spite of the vote I gave last year, I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this New Clause. It is quite true that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and it is quite true that it was brought before the Royal Commission on Income Tax. The Royal Commission made no definite recommendation on the subject. We do not believe that the acceptance of this Clause would make any important difference to the uncertainty which is felt on the part of these officials as regards their present position. But we are going into the matter, and I can only ask the hon. Member to exercise a little more patience.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Excise Liquor Licences.)

The duties chargeable on the following excise liquor licences, that is to say, retailers' on-licences for spirits, beer or wine, retailers' off-licences for spirits, beer or wine, so far as regards licensed premises situate in a parish or district with less than two thousand inhabitants, shall be reduced by fifty per cent.—[Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give sympathetic attention to this Clause. I would point out that the small innkeepers in the small country districts have to pay licences—[Interruption.] I would point out to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that many of these licence holders are small ex-Service men who have put their all into these houses. [Interruption.] I am willing to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot undertake to remodel the Licence Duties during the course of the present financial year, but I will give careful consideration to the matter from the point of view from which my hon. and gallant Friend is interested. I shall certainly be bound to consider the question of licences in the future, and this is a point which must then be taken into consideration. I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will avail himself of his regular Parliamentary opportunities then.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn

Mr. MAXTON: In accordance with the agreement come to, and broken by the hon. Members opposite, I do not propose to move an Amendment in my name, although I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give it very serious consideration. I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will forgive me if I allow myself the luxury of a gibe. It is very difficult to keep these agreements.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
In making this Motion, I would like to thank the Committee for the spirit in which they have conducted the proceedings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress, to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before-One o'Clock a.m.